



-^ V, "oho' -^^ ^O 



V 



0''^ o " o ^ '♦^ 






A N 

ANTI-SLA.VEUY MANUAL, 



An Examinatiou, in the Light of the Bible, 

and of Facts, into the Moral and Social Wrongs of 

American Slavery, with a Remedy for the Evil, 



JOHN G. FKE, 



A MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL. 



''Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil ; 

That put darkness for light, and light for darkness. — Isaiah 5 : 20. 

" It is a debt we owe to the purity of our Religion, to show that it is 
: variance with the law that warrants Slavery.' — Patrick Henry. 



MAYSVILLE, KY.: 

PRINTED AT THK HERALD OKFICK, 

1848. 



United States op Ameiiica, } „ . 
DisTaicT OF Kentucky, ) 

Beit lOmemLered, tliat on the ISth day of February, A. D 1S4S, John 
G. Fee, of said District, deposited in this office, the title of a Book, 
which is as follows, to wit: 

"An Anti-Slavery Manual, being an examination in the light of the. 
Bible, and of Facts, into the IMoral and Social wrongs of Slavery, by 
John G. Fee, a Minister of the Gospel." 

The right whereof he claims as author and proprietor, in conformity 
with an act of Congress entitled "An act to amend the several acts res- 
pecting copy rights."' A copy, attest, 
^' ■ JNO. H. HANNA, Clerk, 

District of Kentucky. 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction 

Chap. I — Slat ery Defined 

1. Not merly involuntary service 

2. Hirelings are not slaves 

3. Apprentices are not slaves 

4. The condiiiou of the Serf not slavery . 

5. Slavery is not mere bond-service . 
Chap. II. — Prophecy concerning Canaan 
Chap. III. — Patriarchal servitude 

1. Import of the word Servant . 
:2. Int^port of the word Buy 
3. Souls gotten in Haran ..... 
Chap. IV., — Servitude under the Mosaic Economy 

1. Points in the lext relied upon 
(1) Import of Bondman .... 

.(2.) Import of Buy 

.(3 ) Import of Possession and Inheritance 
(4.) Import of Forever .... 

2. Nature of the servitude 
(1.) The servitude was voluntary 
(2.) The servant had protection of person 
(3.) Much time for religious services 
(4.) Right to acquire and disburse property 
(5.) Right to religious instrnction 
((5.) The servant was a member of the family 
(7.) Entire liberty was secured to the servant 

3. Design of the servitude 

4. The persons to whom permitted . 
Chap. V. — The ten com.mandments and slavery 

Rights not created by law .... 



Page. 

. 6 

. 13 

. 14 

. 16 

. 16 

. 16 

. 16 

. 18 

. 20 

. 20 

. 22 

. 24 

. 32 

. 32 

. 33 

. 36 

. 37 

. 40 

. 46 

. 46 

. 57 

. 62 

. 63 

. 64 

. 64 

. 64 

. 66 

. 67 

. 68 

. 74 



Chap. VI. — Import of words in the New Testament 

and teaching of Christ 

Chap. VII. — Duties of Masters and Servants (onsidered 

Duties of Servants .... 

Duties of Masters .... 

1. Objections drawn from Epb. 6: 5-9 

" '= " 1 Tim. 6: 2 

'' '' " Philemon 

2. Objection drav'^n from hileiice of the Apostles 
Slaveholders not members of the Apostolic churches 

Chap. VIII. — Slavery sinful in itself 

1. A usurpation of Gods au hori;y 

2. A u>urpa!ion of Man's ii^ht.>^ 
(I ) Kight to personal ownership 
(i ) Riiilit to serve (iod as he chooses 
(3.) Right to personal secuii y 
(1.) Right to acquire a:idh()ld property . 
Evils connected vviih slavery — to the Slave — to the Master 

— '.o the Church 

Chap. IX. — Rhvikdy for the Evil — Emancipation immedi 
ate .......... 

This IS safe and profitable ..... 

Colonization unjust, unchristian, hopeless 
Coloni/.a.ion will tighlen slavery on us . . . ' 
Coloniza'.ion feeds an unchristian prejudice 
Amalgama ion ..... 

Other objections answered 

APPENDIX. 
Color 



Structure of the hair of the Negro 
Otiensive smell . 
Form \ Features of the face 
I Form of the head 
[ Shape of the toot. 
Intellectual Capacity 
Arbitrary Divorce not sanctioned bythe Mosaic Economy 
Concubinage not sanctioned-by the Mosaic EcoNo.My 



76 

83 

90 

92 

99 

101 

102 

112 

113 

117 

126 

126 

128 

129 

137 

138 

140 

143 

154 
155 
170 
173 
175 
176 
176 



183 
195 
193 
199 
203 
205 
206 
216 
223 



ERRATA. 



Paf'e 10, line 15, for drunkenness TeaA drunkards, 

" 16, " 28, '• globe read glebe. 

" 18, " 14, " coiase read cio-5e. 

'' 24, '•' 18, after induce read ''or prepare.'' 

<' 30, bottom line, for integrity read iniquity. 

" 37, Una 18, for property read ?i?/e. 

'•' 37, first line of the note, for Judkin read Jnnkin. 

'' 63, line 4, for absttnance read obstinence. 

<< 63, •' 37 and 39, for Messhibosheth read Mephibosheth. 

^' 63, '' 38, for /tent? read 6reaf/. 

^'- 68, '•' 29. " does read do. 

" 69, '' 20, '' ii'as read were; and for or, read and. 

i' 79, " 3, of first note, for saera read sacra. 

" 94, line 28, for said to, read told. 

'' 9S, '•' 10, " they read /le. 

•' 97, " 33, " crucijkation read crucifixion. 

•' 144, '' 35, ''' ?au' read /azi*. 

'' 192, read vii//it opissan as one word* 

^' 197, line 42, for hose read those. 



INTRODUCTION. 



"The human mind," said Professor Miller, of Glasgow,, 
"revolts at a serious discussion of the subject of Slavery. — 
Every individual, whatever be his country or complexion, is 
Ciititled to freedom." 

"Whilst the above is true, and readily seen by minds always, 
accustomed to free institutions, and never blurred by opposite 
teachings and customs ; yet, the history of the past tells us, 
that where institutions have been made familiar by use, hal- 
lowed by time, and sanctioned by the highest civil and reli-. 
gious authorit}^, the human mind may be induced to embrace, 
and practice that which is opposed to the noblest feelings of 
our nature, and the plainest principles of natural justice. — ■. 
Under such influences, the mother has been induced to throw 
her smiling babe into the arms of burning Molock ; and the fa- 
ther stand with approving silence by, whilst its infant shrieks,, 
amidst devouring flames, were drov/ned by the hoarse voice, 
of Tophet's drums, and the frantic yells of Religious devotees. 
By such influence, among nations of antiquity, renowned 
for learning, intellectual strength and sagacity, the arbitrary 
murder of the wife by the husband, the child by the parent, 
have been regarded as lawful, and praised by the deluded pop- 
ulace. Idolatry, theft, adultery, every sin forbidden in the 
decalogue, has, in diflerent ages, been sanctioned by law, and 
practiced by the people, as consistent with right, and even 
praisevYorthy. How true are the words, so often quoted : 

'• Vice is a monster of such frightful mien. 

As to be dreaded needs but be seen ; 

But seen too olt, familiar with her face, 

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.'' 

With the above facts before us, it is not a strange thing 
that slave-holding, when sanctioned by the law of the land, 
rendered familiar by every day's occurrence, practised by 
parents to us kind and beloved, and by revered christian 
friends { apologised for by the pastor from the sacred desk, 



txtrodiYtiox. 



with whose name and labours are associated our very hopes 
of Heaven; and last of all. entorced by the Judges of our 
civil courts, with sacred book in hand ; with all these influen- 
ces, goaded on by hearts too full of covetousness, and too fond 
of ease, it is not strange that even slave-holding should be 
deemed at least tolerable. 

Nor will it be deemed a useless work, to frame a serious, 
and extended argument, 1o remove teachings engraven by the 
highest human authority, and the dearest associations. "Even 
the slave trade," says H. Gregoire, "has been a subject of 
discussion for more than twenty years in the British Parlia- 
ment; and so distinguished for talents and sophistry, have 
been some of its abettors, that a refutation of their false rea^ 
soning, became h'lghhj useful, and et'en necessary." Clark- 
son tells us the same inhuman practice was not only sanctioned 
by the laws of the land, in his day, but defended as a religious 
institution. Though this foreign slave trade is declared by 
the American government to be Piracy, and punishable with 
death : and though domestic Slavery is in nature, practice and 
crime, the same as the foreign slave trade, (viz : the robbing 
innocent men and women of their natural liberty,) yet so 
numerous are its defenders, and so distinguished for talents 
and authority are some of its defenders, that "a refutation 
of their false reasoning is highly useful, and even necessary.'" 
Although there are a multitude of persons who, after all this 
pro-slavery teaching, do not feel satisfied; and say that 
'.'Somehow or other it is not exacdy right;" yet, they cannot 
tell definitely where, and how it is forbidden. This want 
of definite knowledge — of ready weapons, deprives them 
of courage to attack. If they had the armour, there would 
soon be thousands of valiant soldiers in the fields — yea, upon 
the sunny plains of the South. We mean soldiers engaged 
only in a moral warfare. Also, there is in the South a vast 
amount of teaching like the following: "In olden times there 
were some practices, su'?h as concubinage, arbitrary divorce, 
and slavery, which God "winked at" — tolerated. The 
Apostles got rid of the first two of these practices, but saw 
fit to continue the toleration of the latter." Taking the former 
for granted — as true, many suppose Slavery is one of the things 
to be tolerated. And we believe all those books written by 
anti Slavery men, on the principle, and on the admission that 
God did tolerate some anti-christian practices, and among 
others Slavery, unrebuked in the church, yet inculcated prin. 



INTRODUCTIOy. Vll 

ciples opposed to them, and such as would eventually wear them 
out — all such books, and all such teaching, we believe to be 
erroneous, and wholly inadequate to the end — the removal of 
Slavery. In despite of tlie most laboured arguments, the 
people will still say and believe, that if these practices were 
not sinful then, they are not sinful now : if christians might 
practise them then, they may practice them now: the circuni 
stances of time and place, cannot change moral right or wrong* 
We need, then, a different kind of leaching. And it was 
in view of the above facts, that a worthy President of one 
of our Southern Colleges, said to me : ' We need an Anti- 
Slavery Manual, giving a concise, yet comprehensive Bible 
argument, showing Slavery to be sin; and one that we can 
put in the hands of every man in the South,' 

As a citizen of the Soutli, as one who has been born and 
reared in the midst of Slavery, as one who has lived and la- 
bored along with slaves from infancy to manhood, and who 
has seen Slavery in its workings from its Northern to its 
Southern boundary, I believe the words of that President to 
be true. Prior to this, because God in his providence had 
thrown my lot in the land of Slavery, and made me acquaint- 
ed with its workings, and the feelings of those involved in it. 
I felt called, and had consecrated my life to the work of 
preaching the Gospel of love to all men, designed to remove 
that common enemy of religion, of virtue, of knowledge, and 
of human happiness — Slavery. 

In 1844, I delivered in outline, the argument contained in 
the following chapters, to some of the citizens of my native 
county — Bracken county, Kentucky. In 1845, I delivered 
the same in Lewis county, to the congregation to which I now 
minister. In 1846, by request, I sent the whole argument 
to the True American; in which, in a series of numbers, the 
argument was published. At the suggestion of some friends, 
I have revised these numbers, and collected them into chap- 
ters in their present form. And, as the whole is for gratui- 
tous distribution, and designed to be a kind of Manual for the 
aid of those who are desirous to gather truth and facts on the 
all-absorbing question, I have felt free, for the sake of enforc- 
ing the original plan, to make some extracts from authors 
which have appeared since the publication of the original 
numbers. 

Our argument is chiefly a Bible argument ; because, 

1. We need to enlist the conscience. Said a late write.i-v 



INTRODVCTIOX. 



"The more I see of Slavery, the more am I convinced that 
whenever we move against Slavery, we should do so from 
the consideration that it is sin against God." "For," said 
he, " whenever we lose sight of this fact, we lose our hold 
Upon conscience." The loss of this is a great loss. Facts 
prove that it is conscience, that has nerved the arm, fired the 
heart, and emboldened the soul in all great struggles for truth 
and liberty. It has given permanency, as well as potency, to 
action. So great is the desire for popularity, and the unvvill- 
ino-ncss to meet opposition, that unless we can get men to feel 
that they owe a duty to then- fellow man, the cause of truth, 
and of God — that unless they move forward in behalf of the 
oppressed their souls cannot be unspotted from guilt, even 
the non-slaveholder is apt to "hear slightly," the cries of pa- 
triotism and philanthropy. 

With the slaveholder, who has hundreJs and thousands 
invested in his slaves, unless we can awaken his conscience, 
lay the hand upon his soul and cause it to tremble for its future, 
and immortal interests, we shall find it difllcult, if not impos- 
sible, to convince him that it is his duty, and for his good, 
that he should make sacrifice of his present interests; and "let 
the oppressed go free." 

2. The Bible in our country, is the standard of right. Its 
decisions are final. And there is not a Judge upon the bench, 
nor a jury in the land, who will decide in opposition to 
what are the generally received teachings of the Bible. If 
these teachings, or interpretafions be wrong, they will decide 
with them ; because they understand them to be the teaching of 
the Bible. If the common interpretation of the Bible be 
wrong, then there is the greater necessity that a correct inter- 
pretation be placed in the hands of every man— of every 
juror that their decisions may not only be made in accord- 
ance witli what they shall suppose to be the Bible, but also, 
with truth and right. 

3. We appeal to the Bible, because the apologists ot Slave- 
ry also appeal to it ; and, as we believe, by false interpreta- 
tions, make it to support despotism of the grossest form. — 
We wish to see it free from such perversions. We wish to^ 
haake no new, or foreign interpretafions, but simply tear oft' 
the false glosses that have been placed upon it, that it may 
shine with its original purity and righteousness. 

4. In this exposition we have indulged a litde m verbal 
'-rilicisms. This we have done because much of the pro- 



INTRODUCTION". IX 

slavery argument in the South, at least in Kentucky, is inters 
woven, or built upon Greek and Hebrew criticisms. And I 
know that many persons seem to think the pro-slavery argu« 
ment is strengthened by the fact that it is backed by such an 
array of learning. In order to the greatest good, it is neces- 
sary to meet this array of learning; and by this means ex- 
pose the deceptions, that no soul be deluded; and that the 
advocates of freedom may have their positions strongly forti- 
fied, and their confidence unwavering. 

In our criticisms, we have endeavored to present them so 
that the common reader of English will see their force and 
propriety. 

5. In order that the evil of Slavery may be fully seen, we 
have also incorporated some facts, showing the evil effects of 
Slavery upon general intelligence — upon the domestic and so- 
cial relations of life — upon the efficiency of the church, and 
the purity of religion. 

Its corrupting influence upon the Gospel, calls loudly for the 
interposition of every voice in the land — every lover of vir- 
tue, and the salvation of the soul of the master, as well as the 
slave. The Bible teaches us that the sum and essence of 
all religion is supreme love to God, and equal love to our 
neighbor: that there is no religion without this. See Luke 
10: 27. Math. 22: 37—40. And it is delusion to hope that 
we love God when we do not love our neighbor as ourselves : 
for, " He that Livethetb not hi?; brother whom he hath seen, 
how can he love God whom he hath not seen." (John 4: 20.) 
"And if ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14: 15.) 
The practical teaching of Slavery is the opposite of all this and yet 
it is alledged to be in accordance with the religion of the Bible. 
Thepurity of religion then and the salvation of the soul, requires 
us to speak. Silence is treason to God — treachery to man. 
We honestly believe that the policy of those who keep si- 
lence on this subject, in order that they may not waken thd 
prejudice of the master, and thus have " access to master and 
slave," is as ruinous in practice, as it is corrupting in principle; 

The word of God (1st Cor. 6: 10,) says, Drunkards shall 
not enter the kingdom of Heaven. This, of course, means 
a deliberate and unrepenting drunkard. Now, suppose some 
individuals, or denominations, in order not to awaken the 
prejudice of drunkards, and get access to them, should apol- 
ogise for drunkenness — saying it was a Patriarchical practice, 
as in the case of those good men, Noah and Lot; or, if they 
B 



INTRODICTIOX. 



did not apologise for it, say, "We will be silent — we will go 
along and preach the Gospel, [or a part of the Gospel they 
mean,] and let these licensed sins alone ;" saying pervertingly, 
"Be subject to the powers that be." What would be the 
consequence of such a policy ? Drunkenness would be mul- 
tiplied all over the land, and drunkards would go to the Judg- 
ment bar deluded by false teaching. 

By such a policy the Gospel would be lowered in its 
claims, and deprived of its power to purify society — ^be con- 
verted into a mere "conscience plaster," quieting the inebriate 
in his lust, until at the Judgment dsy he beholds — oh, my 
God! too late — that he is still in his sins; and with anguish 
of soul, he cries, Farewell Heaven ! farewell forever ! ! 

Now, reader, the same scripture, (1st Cor. 6: 10,) which 
says drunkenness shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, 
says also. No extortioner shall enter the kingdom of Heav- 
en. That slaveholding is the worst form of extortion, few 
will deny. To be silent, then, is to teach mcu that they may 
live in the worst of extortion, and yet go to Heaven. It is to 
deprive the Gospel of its power to remove such sins — leave 
the poor slave ground down in ignorance ; and cheat the mas- 
ter out of the salvation of his soul. O, the criminality of 
such a course ! Will not the blood of souls be required at 
the hands of those watchmen who refuse " to speak, to 
warn" the extortioner "from his way"? — "His blood will I 
require at their hands." (See Ezekiel 33: S.) And would 
it not be better that the South should be without a Gos- 
pel Ministry, than wiUi one which corrupts the word of 
God, and allov/s practices which as effectually exclude from 
Heaven, as Heathen darkness itself? I believe it. More- 
over, if the South had not a delusive Gospel, which now gives 
a partial quietus to conscience, she would soon seek a pure 
Gospel, or a whole Gospel; for, "all that a man hath, will 
he give for his life." Let churches go, rather than delude 
them with false hopes, ajid corrupt the very standard of right. 
Christ and his Apostles often left, if men would not hear the 
whole truth. Then, as we desire the purity of the Gospel, 
and the never-dying soul of the master as well as the slave, 
we must in faithfulness speak. 

Did we do otherwise, you would say we are "hirelings who 
flee v,-hen we see the wolf coming." But the good shepherd, 
the true pastor will sland by the sheep, and raise the warn- 
ing voice, because he loves the sheep, and fears his God. — 



IXTUODrCTIOX. xi 

(John 10: 12.) We are free to say, we believe there are 
good and conscientious men, who pursue the poHcy of saying 
nothing about the sinfuhiess of Slavery. But charity for the 
men, should not lead us to overlook their practice; which we 
believe to be delusive and ruinous. With these views, to re- 
main silent is to be unloyal to God, and unfaithful to master, 
as well as to slave. 

This, then, dear reader, is our reason for speaking against 
a sin sanctioned by law, and practiced by men we love. 

We have endeavored to speak in a spirit of love and kind- 
ness ; for we know the difficulties of those involved in slave- 
holding. We know the biasing effect of education, of exam- 
ple, of interest, and of prejudice. We know, too, the anxiety 
of an awakened conscience on the question of human rights 
— the enslavement. of our fellow-men, the brethren of Christ, 
and children of our Heavenly Father. We know the solici- 
tude of those, who really wish to know what is truth on this 
question, which is now the great question in Church and State. 
We have, therefore, written such truths as were eff'ective in 
awakening our minds, with the hope that they may be found 
useful to others. 

Our interests are identified with yours: and we have no 
motive to say, or do any thing on this subject, but such as is 
drawn from duty to God and man. About this subject we may 
honesdy differ: yet, let us have charity for each other, and a 
mutual expression of our honest convictions of truth ; remem- 
bering that it is by the free expression of opinion, that the 
landmarks of truth are advanced ; that " truth has noth- 
ing to fear from error, so long as she is left free to combat it;" 
and that freedom of thouglit, and liberty of speech are natu- 
ral, and constitutional rights, 

THE AUTHOR, 



CHAPTER I. 

SLAVERY DEFINED. 

"Compared with Slavery," said Dr. Fuller, of South Car- 
olina, "all other questions, that agitate the minds of men in 
the United States, are really trifling." And the great point to 
he setded in ^'eference to this question is, whether it is in itself 
sinful. As the standard of right and wrong in our country 
is the Bihle, our decision of this question, must be made by 
an appeal to the teaching of the Bible on the subject. 

But, before we can call in the decision of the Bible, we 
must define what is meant by Slavery; or what relation eon-, 
stitutes a man a Slave. 

Much confusion on this subject, has arisen from the want 
of definitions, and from those incorrectly made. 

" The term Slave," says Dr. Johnson, "is derived from 
Slavi or Slavonians, v/ho were subdued and sold by the Veni- 
tians, and signifies one mancipated or sold to a master. Manci-. 
pation on the same authority is involuntary obligation. Slavery. 
The liatin mancipium, from which the word mancipated is 
derived, signifies, (1) property, or right of perpetual posses- 
sion, as lands. (2) a slave." 

A Slave, then, is one who, tcithont his consent, is held as 
property, before and after he is of age — during lifetime; 
and that in such a manner that he may acquire nothing, pos- 
sess nothing, nor do any thing, either for himself, his wife, his 
family, his church, his country, his God, but with the consent 
of his master. 

And Slavery is that relation in which unofTending human 
beings are, without their consent, made and held as property 
for lifetime. 

That the slave is thus hold, and is one in this relation, is 
proved: 1. By the laws of Slave States. "A Slave is one 
who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The 
master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and 



1 1 SLAVERY DEriNF.D. 

his labor; lie can do nolhing, possess nothing, nor acquire any 
lliino- but what must belong to his master." Code of Lousiana. 
"Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed to be 
chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, 
their executors, administrators and assigns to all intents, con- 
structions and purposes whatsoever," See laws of South 
Carolina, Stroud, p. 22. 

2. From similarity of tenure with other property, in all 
Slave States. What we hold as property, we use and dispose 
of as we please, without consulting the will of said property. 
So, the will, interest, happiness or duties of the Slave, may 
be wholly disregarded. 

3. From claim of the master. He claims his slave, not as 
a hireling, child or ward, but as his property. 

To prevent confounding the above relation with those which 
are lawful and necessary, I remark : 

1. All who perform involuntary service for others are not 
Slaves; otherwise, unwilling jurors, or those citizens com- 
pelled to fight for a season the battles of their country, would 
be Slaves. Much error and confusion have arisen from 
defining Slavery to be merely involuntary servitude. Invol- 
untary servitude is a part of Slavery, but not the whole of it. 

Dr. Fuller, and Dr. Rice, (in substance,) with many other 
apologists for Slavery, have assumed Paley's definition: — "an 
obligation to labor for the benefit of the master without the 
contract or consent of the servant," as a correct definition of 
Slavery. 

If this definition be correct, then, as a child is under obli- 
gation to perform service for the parent without contract or 
consent, there would be no diff'erence between the relation 
which a child sustains to its parent, and the relation which 
a Slave sustains to his master. But this is not true. For, 

(1.) The relation of child to parent is natural. That of 
the Slave to the master is not. Freedom is the natural state 
of all men; so soon as they attain the age of manhood. 

(2.) The relation or obligation of the child to the, parent, 
is only during the years of minority; but Slavery is lor life. 

(3.) The child receives more than an equivalent for his 
services; but the Slave does not receive any thing like an 
equivalent. Slavery is continued only for the supposed 
profits of extortion. If masters had to give equivalents to 
their Slaves, Slavery would soon cease. 

(4.) The child in its natural relation may never be sold. 



SLAVERY DEFIXEI?. 13 

To sell is an abuse of the relation. But slavery makes one 
adult man the property of another man; liable at all times to 
be sold as other property. 

Do you say the master may have the power to sell, but 
he ought not to exercise it; and if he don't, then there is no 
harm done in holding the man as a Slave? We reply, 1. If 
it would be wrong for the master to exercise the power, then 
it was wrong in us to give him the power. We ought to o-ive 
no man a power, which it would be wrong for him to exer- 
cise. We ought not to tempt him to evil. 

3. The liability of the sale of the Slave does not depend 
alone upon the ivill of the master. The law has made that 
slave property, and the law holds him liable to sale as other 
property, irrespective of the wish of either him or his master. 
If the master is in debt — becomes bankrupt, the law seizes 
the Slave, and sells him to the highest bidder — the husband 
from the wife, the wife from the husband, the parent from the 
child. Or if the master dies, then the law divides these toil- 
worn slaves to the heirs of the master. And these heirs by 
law, may sell, or separate these human beings, just as they 
do the hogs and catde of their father. They are, by law, 
made property, subject to all the liabilities of property. 

Do you say pass a law forbidding slaves to be sold and fam- 
ilies to be separated? We reply, (1) you would pass an 
abolition act: for no man would buy a slave or slaves when 
he knew he would be compelled to keep that slave, irrespec- 
tive of what his character might prove to be, or irrespective 
of the numbers that might increase on his hands. 

2. With such a law in existence slavery never could have 
had an existence, unless all enslavers had become practical kid- 
nappers, seizing men in a state of freedom, and each master 
for himself reducing his fellow-man to a state of slavery, 
which thing. Dr. Rice says, "was an unrighteous thing." 

3. Such a law would really destroy Slavery and convert it 
into something else — a mere bond service. 

There is a relation regulated by law, in which human be- 
ings are not only held to involuntary service for life, but also 
are held as other property, liable to sale. This relation differs 
from other relations, and is, therefore, correctly designated by 
a different and specific term. That term is Slavery. And 
the relation above alluded to is Slavery. But a relation in 
which human beings were simply required to labour during 
life for another, without the latter liaving power to sell the 



L& 



SLAVERY UKFINED. 



servant, this relation would be a different ih'ng — a mere op- 
pressive bond-service. But we did not set out to discuss 
bond-service. Slavery, then, is not mere obligation to per- 
form service.* It includes property tenure in man for life. 

2. All hirelings are not slaves. This relation is, (1) vol- 
untary. (2) For the mutual good of the laborer and em- 
ployer. (3) Tiie rights of man as man, are regarded and 
Secured. 

3. All apprentices are not slaves. (1) This relation is en- 
tered upon only as a bond service during the period of minor- 
ity in which the law and guardian take the natural and 
necessary relations of parent. (2) For the mutual good of 
apprentice and master. 

To the apprentice a full equivalent is given for services 
rendered. Not so with the Slave. 

(3) His rights as man are all the while regarded and se- 
cured. 

The apprentice is never regarded as in person the property 
of the master. All thd master has, is a cllim to his services 
for the season of minority, or for a term of years. 

He may not hold the apprentice beyond tlie proper period 
for contracting the mairiage relation, nor may he sell the 
apprentice. Thus with the apprentice the marriage relation 
cannot be violated, nor other social and religious duties be in- 
terrupted. To confound this relation with Slavery is to be 
guilty of the grossest fallacy. 

4. The condition of the serf or villein is not Slavery. As 
a fixture he is confined to the globe, but he may not be indi- 
vidually sold and deprived of his home, nor his wife, nor his 
children, nor of religious privileges on Sabbath. 

The relation is indeed oppressive, and the Government 
which inflicts the oppression commits sin in so doing. 

And if Slavery and the condition of the serfs were precisely 
the same, slavery would also be sin, because it is not a natu- 
ral relation and is a robbery of the most precious of all boons, 
— liberty. 

5. Slavery is not mere bond-service for a definite period of 
time. The Jew might sell himself, that is his services, for 
six years: or for forty-nine years — until the year of Jubilee. 
Btill this was not Slavery — it was voluntary servitude: and 

*In this respect we believe the Biblical Repertory, 1S3G, p. 279* 293 
b294j is defective; 



SLAVERY DEFINED. 



11 



the purchaser might not sell the man. He had only a claim 
to his services for himself and family. In like manner white 
men in America have sold their services for a time. 

Nor was the condition of the poor Jew, who was sold for 
theft, until his work should pay the fine, that of American 
Slavery. This was the obligation of a criminal to perform 
service for a definite period of time. 

Both of the above cases differ from thai of a Slave in that, 
the service of the Slave is the involuntary service of an 
innocent man for a lifetime. 

Now difterent relations or conditions should always be dis- 
tinguished by different terms. Propriety and justice require 
it. And as " a definition of any thing is that which distin- 
guishes it from every thing else," Slavery is not defined, until 
it is distinguished irom every thing else. 

Great confusion is madcj and false impressions, even by 
Anti-Slavery men, in calling the bond-service of the Mosaic 
economy; Slavery, where in reality it was something else. — 
It was simple bond-service, in which children were bound by 
parents ur.til they should be "of age," and in the case of adult 
servants, they bound themselves for a term of years, as we 
shall show* And if it is insisted that these servants were 
placed in the hands of the Jew without their wills bein(r 
consulted, we shall show that the Jew might not hold the 
servant so — in involuntary servitude. Mere bond-service is 
not Slavery.* 

But Slavery is that relation in which one innocent man, 
without his consent, is made, for lifetime, the property of 
another, or others. 

The Slave is held in such manner that his person, time, 
labor and all natural rights may be controlled by his master, 
irrespective of the Slave, 

The question then is, whether this relation is sanctioned by 
the Bible. 



* A late writer referring to some valuable articles ^vhich he had writ- 
ten, says : " We have sometimes used the terms Slave and Slavery in the 
preceding discussion, but any one can see that the Mosaic servitude had 
oione of the characlcrislics of modern Slavery." Why then, we ask. con- 
found things entirely dissimilar \\ith the same terms. As long as our 
teachers call the Mosaic servitude Slaveiy, the people will be likely to 
infer that it is what it is called. 

Mr. Barnes has done the same thing — calling that Slavery Mhich 
his previous definitions shoAv. is not real Sla^eiT. 

c 



CHAPTER II. 

THE PROPHECY CONCERNING CANAAN. 

The primitive grant given in Gen. 1: 26, does not sancliofl 
Slavery. There, we are told that God gave to man dominion 
over the fish of the sea, the fowls of the air, the beasts of the 
field; but over man he gave him no dominion. 

A like grant was given, or continued to Noah after the flood; 
(Gen. ix: 2.) But over man, he had no dominion. But 
some, even Ministers of the Gospel, and Judges of our civil 
Courts, in their instructions to Grand Juries, in vindication 
of African enslavement, plead Gen. ix: 25. "And he (Noah) 
said cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto 
his brethren." 

The argument drawn from this passage is as follows :^ 
" The text declares that the Canaanitcs were to be cursed for 
Ham's sin. The course to be inflicted was enslavement by 
the descendants of Shem and Japheth. We as the descend- 
ants of Japheth are enslaving the Canaanitcs, and are there- 
fore, doing right." The conclusion is false; being drawn from 
premises which are themselves false. 1. It is assumed that 
the text declares a curse, that was to be inflicted on the 
Canaanitcs, for Ham's sins. And, 2. The people we are 
enslaving are Canaanitcs. In answer to the first proposition 
I reply: — 1. The text is simply a. for^n of propheci/, fore- 
telling the curse that would come upon the Canaanitcs for 
their oivn sins; just as the blessings pronounced by the patri-- 
archs on their children, were forms of prophecy, which the 
patriarchs were inspired to foretell at the time. See Cruden 
on the word blessing. 

The act of Ham was the suggesting occasion, or the act 
eliciting the prophecy; as the act of Hezekiah was the occa- 
sion, eliciting the prophecy foreteUing the despoihng of his 
goods. See Isa., xxxix: 6. 

The truth then is this: the patriarch was inspired by God 
to foretell on this occasion, which had some analogy to the 
sins of the Canaanitcs, the curse that would come upon them 
for their own sins. Proof: 1. The original Hebrew word 



tHK PROPHECY CONCERNING CANAAN. 19 

(unir) is correctly rendered, cursed shall be Canaan. Indeed 
our own English translation conveys the same idea, if we 
observe the context: "A servant of servants ahall he 6e." — 
Not, now is, but ^^sliaU be" is the Englisji version. 

2. The principles of God's moral government require us 

to consider the punishment as inflicted for their own sins 

He does not, by direct and specific providence, punish one 
man for the sin or guilt of another. " The son shall not bear 
th^e iniquity of the father, nor the father the iniquity of the 
son.'' Ez. xviii: 20. 

3, The scriptures declare positively that the curse inflicted 
was for their oivn sins. See Deiut, xviii: 12, "and because 
of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them 
out from before thee." Lev. xvni: 25. "And the land i^ 
defiled: therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof upon it," &c. 
Also Gen. xv: 16. 

These facts prove that the text is, with others like it, simply 
a form of prophecy foretelling the curse that would come 
upon some of the descendants of Canaan for their own sins. 
See the Commentaries of Bush, Scott, Coke and Clark. 

In answer to the seconcTpremise, I reply: There is no proof 
that the Africans we are enslaving, are Canaanites. The 
burden of proof rests with the affirmative ; and inasmuch as 
they vindicate slavery, not on the ground that it is a natural 
relation, and necessary; but only on the ground of permission 
from God, they must show positively a permission from God, 
and then that these Africans among us, are the people whom 
we are permitted to enslave by the authority of the above text. 
This cannot be done, while there is proof abundant that they 
are not the Canaanites. The Canaanites were Asiatics, 
living in the land of Canaan, and are the people who after- 
wards settled the islands of the Mediterranean; and are well 
known not to have been either in their physiognomy or color 
like our Africans.* 

Again : Their language was as different from that of the 
people on the western coast of Africa, as the Hebrew is from 
ours, or ours from the Hottentot or Indian language. 

* Many seem to think the dark complexion and peculiar form of the 
Negroes arc badges of Noah's curse, and that their feeble intellects unfit 
them for freedom, that these are evidences that God designed the Negroes 
to be Slaves. We often hear tliese sentiments proclaimed amongst us 
from men m high places. On the subject of color, form, and intellectual 
-Capacity, see Appendix, letter A. 



20 THE PROPHECY COXCERXING CANAAX. 

But if we admit, what is not true, that the people we 
are enslaving are the Canaanites, still the text furnishes 
no justification of our enslavement of them; the text being 
only a form of prophecy, and a mere form of prophecy never 
justifies those who fulfil it; otherwise the Egyptians who 
oppressed the Hehreivs — Judas who betrayed Christ, and the 
Jews who crucified him, were innocent. For it was foretold 
that they would do these things. 

Once more. The prophecy in the text has had its fulfil- 
ment long since. 

First, in the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Jews, 
who were the descendants of Shem — 

Second, by the Greeks and Romans, who were the descend- 
ants of Japheth, and now by the Turks, and needs not our 
enslavement of a different people to secure its fulfilment. — 
Then, so far as this text is concerned, we have no more right 
%o enslave the black man, than the white man. 



CHAPTER III. 

PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

The next reliance in defence of American Slavery is the 
practice of the Patriarchs. 

Here it is assumed, first, that the Patriarchs held Slaves: 
and Gen. xiv: 14, 17, 12, and other like passages, are plead 
as proof. 

And second, as they were good men, and God did not 
openly censure their practice, .therefore we may do as they 
did. 

In the first position it is assumed that the words servant, 
bondman and bondmaid, means Slave, — one held as property, 
without his consent, before and after he is of age-; whereas, 
the Hebrew word ehed, which is translated servant, like our 
word servant, simply denotes one who does service for an-^ 
other, ivithout regard to the time for lohich, or the principles 
upon ivhich, he does service. The service may be voluntary, 
or it may be involuntary: it may be for a limited time, or it 
:^ay be for an unlimited time. The import of the word must 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 21 

be determined by the connection in which it is used: — by 
historic facts, or by laws defining the servant's condition. — 
A servant in Ohio," and a servant in Kentucky, may mean a 
very different relation. The term ebed, which we translate 
servant and bondman, "nowhere in the Scriptures, of necessity 
implies Slavery." — So says Barnes. Like our word servant, 
it does not of necessity mean one held as properly without 
his consent, before and after he is of age. 

Take, for example, Isa. 42: 1. » Behold my servant whom 
I uphold; mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I liave put 
my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gen- 
tiles." The word servant here, is applied to Christ. Are 
we to infer, therefore, that he was a Slave, doing compulsory 
or umviUing service, and held as an article of property, liable 
to barter and sale? Surely not. 

Again, in 1 Kings, 12: 7, we have these words of the coun- 
sellors to Rehoboam — " If thou wilt be a servant unto this 
people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and 
speak good words unto them, then they will be thy servants 
forever." Here, and in verse 4di preceding, was a declara- 
tion that the people, owning themselves and their properly^ 
and as free as we are, would voluntarily labor for the good 
of Rehoboam, if he would, for them. 

The subjects of Saul and David, who paid a tribute or tax, 
were called servants; see 1 Sam. 8: 17; 1 Chron. 21: 3. — 
Once more, see Joshua 9: 23 — "Now, therefore, ye are cursed, 
and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and 
hewers of M'ood, and drawers of water for the house of my 
God." Tiie word bondmen here, has been quoted as evidence 
that the Gibeonites were Slaves to the Israelites; that they 
held the Gibeonites as individual property, with absolute con- 
trol. But we shall show that even bondman here, does not 
mean a Slave. For if we read Josh. 10: 1-5, Ezra 2: 70, 2 
Sam. 21: 1-14, we learn that the Gibeonites were not the 
individual property of the Israelites, owned and controlled by 
individuals, but that they as a people, lived as a distinct tribe 
or nation, having their own property and families; and as a 
tax, or revenue to the house of God, a part of them, the Ne- 
thinims, (those who did the temple service,) were required to do 
a certain kind, and amount of labor, "for the house of my 
God." Even these Nethinims, who were the part of the 
Gibeonites doing the temple service, lived in their own cities; 
see Neh. 7: 73. Thus we see their bond service was a 



5s PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

requirement of the l:uv, that tliey should perform a certahi 
amount of labor for the house of God — not for individual 
Israelites.*— A service like to that which we maybe required 
to pay to our government in military service ; or that which 
subjugated nations pay as a tax to their king, or similar to that 
which the people of England pay to, or for, as in the established 
church, only it was paid in labor. Bush, in his Notes on 
Exod. 21: 2, says: "the word servant is applied to the serving 
of worshippers, of tributaries, of domestics, of Levites, of 
sons to a father, of subjects to a ruler, of hirelings, of soldiers, 
of public officers, &c. And to interpret it Slave, or to argue, 
from the fact of the words being used to denote domestic 
servants, that they were made servants by force, worked with- 
out pay, and held as articles of properly, would be a gross 
and gratuitous assumption." 

Then the mere fact that the patriarchs had servants, does 
no more prove that these servants were slaves, than the fact 
that a farmer in Ohio has a body of servants in his employ, 
proves that they are Slaves. More will be said on this when 
we come to the Mosaic institution, where servitude was reg:- 
ulated by the law. 

But secondly, it is maintained that the patriarchs not only 
had servants, but servants bought with money ; and these 
must have been slaves. We reply, to buy, in the days of the 
patriardis, and Mosaic institutions, as it has been with us, did 
not give absolute ownership, or unlimited control in all cases. 
The word buy in English, and kana in Hebrew, which is 
the word we translate, "^9 huy,'''' are raodilied or limited in 
their signification by the laws of the land where they are 
used, and the subjects to which they are applied. See Bib- 
lical Repository, April No. 18 44, page 308. 

Examples in illustration of tliis rule. When a Jew, or 
stranger, bought a piece of land under the Mosaic economy, 
that Jew, or stranger, had not absolute ownership, or unlinir 

*Thoiigli this service was not Slavery, its requirement was without 
■tlivine sanction. God hail commanded the Israelites to slay every thing 
in the land of Canaan. But because the '-Princes of the congrega- 
tion swore unto the Gibconltes, that they would not destroy them;'' yet 
■as these Gibeonites had lied unto the princes, Joshua and the princes 
required a ta.x: of bond service of them, to the house of God. Yet we 
are told that this whole transaction was without " council fromihe moutli 
of the Lord." Indeed, contrary to his previous command. So Brisbane 
im loco. So there was no authority for exacting this bond service. 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDi:. 23 

iled conirol. He had the use of the kind until the year of 
Jubilee, when it reverted to the original owner. See LeVi 
25: 2i. Such, doubtless, was the tenure in man. By the 
law his service was secured until he was of age, or in other 
cases, until the year of Jubilee, when all went out free. See 
Lev. 25: 10. "Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- 
claim liberty throughout all the land, and to all the inhabit- 
ants thereof: ye shall return every man unto his possession, 
and ye shall return is very man to his family." When a He- 
brew servant was bought, the master had not absolute or un- 
limited control, but simply a claim to his services for six 
years; see Exod. 21: 2. So with us, when emigrants to this 
country are sold for their passage money, they are sold for a 
definite period of time, and the man who buys them has a 
claim upon their services for a few months; then they are 
free men, having all the ivhile their natural rights protected. 
The emigrant received an equivalent for his labor, and when 
the stipulated service was performed, he went free ; though he 
had been bought. He received his price, or hire himself, and 
that before hand, and was therefore said to be bought. 

Boaz bought Ruth. (Ruth, 4: 10.) Hosea bought his wife. 
(Hos. 3: 2.) Jacob his ; but it does not follow, that because 
these were bought, that they were, therefore, held as slaves. 

Nehemiah and his brethren bought some of their brethren 
from the Persians; see Nehem, 5: 8; but they were not held 
as slaves, though bought. We leara from the record, that 
they were restored to freedom immediately : moreover, the 
law would not permit them, they being Jews, to be held lon- 
ger than six years; see Exod. 31: 2. Though bought, they 
were not held as Slaves : nor is there a particle of evidence 
that the servants of the Patriarchs ivere held in invohintary 
servitude, a day after they had attained the age of freemen. 
It is wholly an assumption for men to say they did. It can- 
not be proved, and the burden of proof lies with those who 
take the affirmative. Neither the word servant, nor the word 
buy, prove that those doing service for the Patriarchs were 
Slaves. "Nothing but historic facts and laws defining the 
condition or relation of those doing service, can prove that 
they were Slaves. 

Now, having shown the signification of the word buyj 
even admitting that the Patriarchs might, or did buy .children 
of their parents, still, in the cd)sence of alt proof to the con^ 
trary, it is fair to infer that the Patriarchs followed the gen-* 



34 PATRIARCHAL SEKVITUW:. 

eral custom of the world by giving liberty to man, when he 
attained the age of free men. If they bought adults, there is 
no proof that they bought of a third person, for servants 
might, and did sell tliemseives — (Lev. 25: 47,) — agree toper- 
form service for a given term of years. 

One more text remains to be noticed. "And Abraham 
took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their 
SUBSTANCE that they had gadiered, and the souls that they 
had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land 
of Canaan." (Gen* 12: 5.) Although the term substance is 
here used to denote all their property, and a distinction made 
between their substance, and the souls gotten, or proselyted in 
llaran, some persons overlooking this distinction, have labored 
to show that these souls were held as property also, and that 
the Hebrew word asah, means to purchase as absolute 
Jiroperty; 

Tiie Hebrew word asah, a form of which is here rendered 
^'gotten,'' means to induce; and "^-o/f m" is to be here under- 
stood in the same sense that a Missionary of the present day^ 
"gets" anotliertogo with him to India, or China. 

The word is here used in the plural form; and designates 
the persons whom Abraham, Lot and Sarah, had proselyted, 
or induced to forsake their idolatry, and go with them as a 
colony into Canaan: and as such, were fit subjects to receive 
the "seal of the righteousness of faiths" "The word is usedj 
(Gen. 2: 2,) to signify the finishing of God's creation. It 
expresses, (Geni 5: 1,) God's work in fashioning the man^ 
whom he had created, according to his own image and like- 
ness. It is Used (Ezekiel 18: .31,) to express the work of 
regeneration or restoring, in a sinner, the lost image of his 
maker. In the passage before us, it expresses the instrumen- 
tality of a prophet, and his pious wife, and nephew, in the 
conversion of the souls whom they brought with them from 
Haran." S. Crothers; 

The passage in the Targum of Jonathan is thus rendered.' 
" The souls whom they had made proselyte in Haran." 

The Targum of Jerusalem : " The souls proselyted in 
Haran." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian 
Fathers, renders it thus: "The persons whom they had 
proselyted." 

Menochius, who wrote before our present translafion of the 
Bible, renders it, " Quas de idolatraria converter cnt,'" "Those 
Whom tliey had converted from idolatry." Quoted from 
\V eld's Bible Argument. 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 25 

*rhe "souls gotten" then, means those whom they had 
induced to forsake idolatry, and go with them to the worship 
of the true God. 

That the souls gotten, could not have been slaves — persons 
held as property without their consent, before and after age — 
will be clear from facts which we now proceed to notice. 

(Having shown that the arguments relied upon by the affirm- 
ative, or advocates of Slavery, prove nothing; we proceed to 
adduce facts, shoiving that the servants of the Patriarchs 
could not have been AeM as Slaves.) And, 1st. The employ- 
ment and situation of the Patriarchs. They were wandering 
shepherds, going from country to country, amidst hostile 
tribes, and having no more power than one man. They had 
no confederacies as we have. There was no league of States, 
or Nations to oppress their poor as we have. They could 
not call to their aid the military power of a nation, to suppress 
the first instincts of nature. They could not call to their aid 
the voice of the magistrate, the prison, the fetter, to restrain 
their fellow man from efforts to be a man, and not a chattel. 
The servant could go where, when, and as he chose, just as a 
voluntary subject of one of the chiefs of our western wilds 
now can. 

What would Abraham do with three hundred and eighteen 
trained or armed servants, led to Dan, the extreme point of 
the province? What would one of our Southern slavehold- 
ers do witli three hundred and eighteen of tlieir full grown 
Slaves at Buffalo in New York, or Detroit in Michigan, with 
but a step between them and Canada? — Think you they 
would be forced back to be the property of, and labor for the 
gain of a master who had no power to compel them? — Who 
could call no other force than that of a single individual, to 
subjugate them ? No ! — such would be contrary alike to 
reason, and facts. And could we look upon Abraham as the 
man "doing justice and judgment," ? (Gen. 18: 19,) — Who 
would, either by his own arm, or by law, compel three hun- 
dred and eighteen of his fellow men to go into bondage, and 
toil for his individual good, or that of his family? Would 
not this be selfishness in the extreme? 

Away then, with such charges of selfishness. I consider 
it a reproach, alike upon the pious Patriarch, and upon that 
God whose darling attributes are goodness, justice, and mercy. 

Second fact; proving that the servants of the Patriarchs 
were not Slaves — persons deprived of personal ownership, 
D 



26 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

without their consent, both before and after age. It is the 
fact that all males were circumcised ; which in the case of 
every adult, must have been voluntary, in order to be valid 
before God. 

All must be circumcised. Gen. 17: 13, ''He that is born 
in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must 
needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your llesh 
for an everlasting covenant." 

Exod. 12: 44, " Every man's servant that is bought for 
money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat 
thereof," i. e. of the passover. 

Now in every adult, this must have been voluntary. (I,) 
From the very nature of the covenant. In this covenant he 
^'chose the Lord to be his God;" and voluntarily agreed to 
be his willing servant, just as an individual, who now receives 
the rite of Baptism, if an adult, must receive it willingly, in 
order to be valid. In it, he v/illingly chooses the Lord to be 
his God. No one would think of compelling an individual 
to be baptized; or to take the covenant: otherwise, "it would 
be the seal of a lie," and "God abhors the sacrifice where 
not the heart is found," — yet the servantmnst be circumcised. 
The law, as seen above, required it ; and if he did not, 
"that soul shall be cut off from his people" saith the Lord. 
See Gen. 17: 14. Then the Patriarchs could have none in 
their service, save those who were circumcised; and thus were 
incorporated into the church of God : yet this chtirch, from 
the very nature of its organization, might liave none but 
willing members. If he should refuse to be circumcised and 
become a member of the church, he must leave the Patri- 
archs, He must then have been voluntary in his stay, and 
in his services. If he had received circumcision when a 
child, then when he had attained the age of accountability, he 
must voluntarily accept and acknowledge this circumcision; 
for "the God of Jacob would not accept the worship of 
any other than a wiUing heart," 

(2.) The testimony of Maimonides, one of tlie most cele- 
brated of the Jewish Rabbis; Avho was called "the eagle of 
the doctors, and the lamp of Israel," 

He says, "whether a servant be born in the power of an 
Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the 
master is to bring them both into covenant. * * * If the 
master receive a grown slave, and he be unwilling, his master 
is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, 



PATRIARCHAL SERAITFDE. 27 

and by love and kindness, for one year; after which, should 
he refuse so long, it is forbidden longer than twelve months, 
and the master must send him back to the strangers whence 
he came; for the God of Jacob will not accept any other 
than the worship of a ivilling heart.'''' Quoted in Stroud's 
sketches, page 63, from Gill's Exposition. 

Third fact. No mention is made of the servants of the 
Patriarchs being considered as property. 

Some suppose, from Gen. 26: 14, that Isaac had Slaves. 
"He had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and 
great store of servants." Notice in the text, that whilst it is 
said he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, 
it is not said he had possession of servants. Heb. avuddah 
rabbah, much service; or many servants, just as a large 
farmer in Ohio would have many servants; or as rich shep- 
herds in Oregon where their wandering life, amid wandering 
tribes, would forbid the possibility of holding men as property, 
against their will. The servants of the Patriarchs are often 
spoken of, when the greatness, or strength of the Patriarchs, 
is recorded; just as the greatness or strength of a king is 
spoken of, by noticing a list of his goods, together with the 
number of his soldiers. The mere fact that they were men- 
tioned along with cattle, sheep, &c., no more proves them to 
have been property, than quadrupeds; — or without souls, or 
reason. By the same mode of reasoning, in Exodus 20: 
10, we should prove the man's wife to be his property; — ■ 
held like his ox. She was not property. He had no right to 
sell her. She was a companion to him, and not to any "other 
man. Yet she was not property, otherwise she might be 
sold as other property. 

Adhere, as in Gen. 31: 16-18, Joshua 22: 8, 2d Chron. 32: 
27-29, wealth is alluded to, no slaves are enrolled as property. 
Whilst sheep, and oxen, and silver, &c. are recorded, servants 
are not mentioned. 

Another fact showing that the servants of the Patriarchs 
were not held as Slaves, is this: no record is given of the 
sale or barter of a single servant in the history of all the 
Patriarchs. Nor is there any record of their being given 
away. Pharoah, Laban and others, living in heathen lands, 
gave servants to Abraham and others. But the example of 
Idolaters is no rule for Christians. No record can be found 
of the Patriarchs giving away their servants. When Abra- 
ham gave gifts to Abimalcch he gave sheep, and oxen; but no 
servants. 



28 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

Some maintain from Gen. 24: 36, that Abraham gave his 
servants to Isaac; yet in that same chapter we are told in 
verses 34 and 52, that EUezer was Abraham's servant; and 
not Isaac's. " I am Abraham's servant," says EUezer. — 
"And it came to pass," says Moses, "when Abraham's ser- 
vant heard their words, he worshipped the Lord," &c. Now 
when it is said in verse 36, that Abraham "hath given to him 
(i. e. Isaac) all that he hath," both Moses, and EUezer the 
servant, must have known that he held no property in his 
servants; but that they were simply, either hirelings or per- 
sons bound for a season. 

Again: We know he did not literally give all he had to 
Isaac, for in Gen. 25: 6, we are told "he gave gifts to to the 
sons of his concubines," "and sent them away." And if his 
servants were Slaves, owned by him as property, with this 
last fact before us, the language in Gen. 24: 36, would not of 
necessity imply, that Abraham gave away his Slaves. If he 
had literally given all, then he would have had nothing to give, 
to the sons of the concubines. But the first inference, that 
his servants were not regarded as property, and therefore not 
given away is, we think, the correct view. If Abraham had 
considered his servants as property, and lawfully so, why did 
he not take Hager, when his wife became displeased with her, 
and sell her — trade her to some Slave merchant, who, like 
Babylon, traded in "Slaves and souls of men." — (Rev. 18: 
11-21. Why did he not do this instead of supplying her wants 
out of his own house, and sending her away to go whither she 
chose? If Abraham had considered the "bond woman" — Sa- 
rah's maid, as his slave, and lier and her's, his property, as 
some D. D.'s would fain make us believe, why did he not take 
Ishmael, the son of his bond woman, and seU him to some slave 
trader, instead of giving him "gifts and sending him away." 
(Gen. 25: 6.) Had he done so, is there a man living that 
believes he would have been styled, by a justice and mercy- 
loving God, "the father of the faithful" ? — "the man doing 
justice and judgment"? No! no!! 

Nor is there any evidence that Isaac considered those who 
followed him from place to place, amidst hostile tribes, as 
property: — not even so much as to give them to his sons. 
"Would Isaac transfer them to Esau, who had sold his birth- 
right?" Certainly not, says J. L. Wilson, D. D. When 
Jacob went down into Padan-aram to seek his fortune, he 
went alone ; and had to seU himself as a servant for seven 
y^ears, for his beloved Rachel. (Gen. 28: 20.) 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 29 

In the schedule of his property, when he came out of 
Padan-aram, no servants are mentioned. Josephus says that 
that the hand-maids of Leah and Rachel "were by no means 
slaves; but however subject to their mistress." Antig. B. i. 
ch. 19, §8.* 

When he gave gifts to Esau his brother, he gave no slaves. 
When he went down into Egypt, he took no slaves with him 
— Dr. Judkin to the contrary notwithstanding. The souls 
that went with him, were "the souls that came out of the loins 
of Jacob;" — his children and grand children. Gen. 46: 20- 
27. Exodus 1; 5. See also Relations and Duties of masters 
and servants, by J. L. Wilson, D. D., p. 17, 18. 

Fourth and last fact. The Patriarchs considered slavery 
morally wrong: yes, sinfidin the sight of God. And here we 
will introduce the testimony of Joseph, who had some per- 
sonal experience in the matter. As a matter of complaint, — 
a violation of his own rights, and guilt in those who had thus 
violated them, he says in the anguish of his soul, "I indeed 
was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews', and here 
also have I done nothing, that they should put me in the 
dungeon." (Gen. 40: 15.) He ielt that to be taken without 
his consent, and forced into bondage, though done bi/ the 
common laiu of the land, was theft, — a violation of his 
rights, which God by nature had given him; and all the 
sophisms of the world could not have convinced him to the 
contrary. All the pro-slavery men of Egypt could not have 
convinced him that he was '■^better off," (when the wants of 
his body only were supplied,) than in a state of freedom. 
He had a soul to be fed, as well as a body. A soul like that 
of every other man, by nature, hungered and thirsted for 
liberty. What cared he for the luxuries of Pharaoh's table, 
when he could not take the wonted fare of frugal industry, 
spiced with the sweets of liberty! What cared he for the 
splendor of Pharaoh's courts, when the plains of Judea could 
not be roamed in innocency; and the tent, where dwelt a 

* And if these handmaids of Rachel and Leah had been Slaves, the 
historic fact, that Laban held them as such, before, and when hejgave 
them to Jacob as his concubines^ was no more evidence that slavehold- 
ing was right, than that Idolatry was right. We learn from the Bible, 
that he was an Idolater. 

And if Jacob received these handmaids as Slaves, and held them as 
such, this would be no more evidence, that slaveholding was right, or 
is right, than that concubinage was, or is right: for Jacob had concu 
bines. 



30 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

pious father, lived in his remembrance? What cared he 
for the pageantry of Eg}^pt's temples, where was wor- 
shipped in unmeaning ceremony the spotted calf, whilst the 
smoke of Hebron's altar was unseen; and the worship of God 
under his own vine and fig tree, denied him. " Hog and 
Hominy" was not a compensation for liberty. There was 
to him no equivalent for plundered rights, and lost manhood. 
And I venture the declaration, that if some of our advocates 
for slavery, who, with Bible in hand, learnedly and sancti- 
moniously plead for oppression, were for a season, like 
Joseph, deprived of their liberty; — their wills made to bow to 
the wills of others, and their bodies to toil for the luxury, the 
case or gain of another; liable to be imprisoned by the whim 
of a wowan, or torn from their homes by the cupidity of 
man, they would soon learn whether slavery is morally 
wrong; — whetlier a man in enslaving can "love his neighbor 
ashimself" — whether he can do unto others ashe would they 
should do unto him. In a word, whether the Bible condemns 
slavery or not. 

Not only did Joseph believe slavery to be wrong; but his 
brethren who detained him, and sold him into bondage, 
believed they had sinned against Joseph, and agamsi God: — 
(not merely against their father) when they said "one to 
another, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we 
saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we 
would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon ?/s." — 
(Gen. 42: 21.) "What shall we speak? or how shall wc 
clear ourselves?" ^'■God hath found out the iniquity of thy 
servants." (Gen. 44: 16.) 

" We are guilty concerning our brother." What, guilty 
when they had placed him in a land where he was ''better 
clothed, and better fed,''^ than in the land of his choice; and 
"better provided for" than he would do for himself? Yes, 
they were; for in so doing they had deprived him of^ perso7ial 
ownership — the foundation of all rights; — his personal secu- 
rity, without which all others were comparatively useless : — 
his liberty, the dearest of all rights. "AVe are guilty" in that 
we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and 
we would not." What! is it sinful — a matter of guilt to dis- 
regard the desires and entreaties of of a fellow being? Yes, 
it is; when they are lawful, and we have ability to relieve; 
"for thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself," says God. 

"God hath found out the integrity of thy servants." 



1»ATRIARCHAL SERVITUt)£. Si 

Yes, man may, before his fellow man, whilst in prosperity, 
hide the conviction that Slavery is wrong; and "go joined 
hand in hand with the throne of iniquity;" but when the hour 
of trial conies, and he is made to answer before God, then he 
will confess that Slavery is wrong. 

No other argument is necessary, to refute the whole system 
of Slavery, than this one case of the enslavement of Joseph. 
If it were wrong for his brethren to kidnap him, and if it 
Avere ivrong for those Midianites and Egyptians to continue 
to rob him of his rights — his liberty, then it is just as 
lorong, to continue to rob any other unoffending man, of his 
liberty. We are all the children of one father. 

The second inference drawn from the practice of the Patri- 
archs, is, that "ivhat they as good men did, without open 
rebuke from God, ice may do.'''' 

Now if it were even really true that the Patriarch held 
Slaves, the record of the historic fact, without any express 
disapprobation of it from God, would be no evidence that 
Slavery is right; or that we might do as they did. 

The historic fact that Abraham had two wives, without 
any expressed disapprobation from God, is no evidence that 
polygamy is right, or that we may do as he did — have two or 
more wives. 

The historic fact that Abraham and Isaac practiced decep- 
tion, (the latter palpably lying,) to Abnnalech concerning their 
wives, without any express disapprobation from God, is no 
evidence that lying was, or is now right — that we may now 
practice it towards our neighbors. 

The historic fact, that Noah got drunk, without any express 
disapprobation from God, is no evidence that drunkenness is 
right, or that we may do the same now. 

Is the historic fact, that the brethren of Joseph sold him to 
the Ishmaelites, and thus made a Slave of him, without any 
express disapprobation from God, evidence that the sale of 
innocent men is right, or that brothers may sell their own 
brothers, into hopeless and returnless bondage? No! is the 
response of every man. Yet, absurd as is the position that 
we may do what the Patriarchs did, it is the main argument 
of the apologists for Slavery, as drawn from the practice of 
the Patriarchs. 

If then wc will justify Slavery — the robbing of innocent 
men, women, and children, of those natural rights, which 
God lias given to one man as much as to any other, we must 



33 PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

show that such robbery is consistent with the eternal princi- 
ples of justice and right: — with the principles of that law of 
God, by which we shall be judged. 

The mere example of erring men, like ourselves, is not 
sufficient. 

If then, it were even true that the Patriarch really held 
Slaves, it does not follow, that wo may hold them. 



CHAPTER IV. 

SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

Another Bible institution, plead in defence of American 
Slavery, is the servitude established by Moses amongst the 
Jews; as recorded in Lev. 25: 44-46, — "Both thy bondmen, 
and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt liave, shall be of the 
Heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy 
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the 
strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and if their families that are with you, which they begat in 
your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall 
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to 
inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen 
forever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye 
shall not rule one over another with rigour." 

The argument drawn from this passage is this: — God 
permitted the Jews to enslave the Heathen around them : — 
What he permitted to the Jew, is lawful to us: — Therefore 
we may enslave the Africans. 

In replying to this very popular argument, we sliall 
notice : — 

I. The points in the text, relied upon. 
II. The nature of the servitude instituted. 

HI. The design of the institution. 

IV. The people to whom permitted. 

And I, The points in the text relied upon, as proof that 
the Jews, by God's permission, held Slaves. They are (1.) 
The word "Bondmen." (2.) "Buy." (3.) " Inheritance 
and Possession." (4.) " Forever." 



SEliVITUDK UNDER. THE MOSAIC ECONOiMV. 33 

Do these prove the existence of Slavery? 

The terra Bondmen does not, as may be seen, 

1st. By those passages of Scripture collated under that 
term in our third chapter. By examination of those passages, 
every reader of English may see, that the term is applied to 
the Gibeonites; — a people living in their own cities, — owning 
themselves, — having protection of person, property and char- 
acter; — for the defence of which, they made alliances with 
Israel against their enemies. A portion of their males were 
reqaired by laiv, to do a certain kind of service for the temple 
— "the house of my God." The persons set apart for this 
work, were called Nethinims. The nation of people, required 
by law to furnish these laborers, were called bondmen. See 
Josh. 9: 23. The term bondman then, does not necessarily 
denote a Slave; — but one bound by laio, to the performance 
of labor; and generally, for a definite or fixed period of time; 
as six years; or to the year of Jubilee. The term, as often 
used in the Bible, is very similar in its import, to our term 
bound boy, or bound girl. The term may be applied to one 
required by law, to perform military duty for the good of the 
nation; or to the man in Europe, who may be required by law 
to support the church, or house of God. 

The term bondman, as used even to denote the service of 
the Hebrews in Egypt, does not mean a Slave. The Hebrews 
there, save Joseph when first sold, were not Slaves : — they 
were not the individual property of the Egyptians. As sub" 
jects of Government, an oppressive tax in labor was required 
by law, of the male Hebrews. Proof that even thej weie 
not Slaves. 

(1.) They dwelt as a separrte people in the land of Goshen. 
See Exod. 8: 22, Gen. 46: 34. They were not the property 
of individuals as our Slaves are. They owned themselves, 
their wives and children, and lived with them in separate 
families. Exod. 12: 7,22, Acts, 7: 20, Exod. 10: 23. 

(2.) They oit'nerf "flocks, and herds, and very much cattle." 
Exod. 12: 32, 38. 

(3.) They had officers, and framed State or national laws, 
peculiar to themselves. Exod. 5: 19. 12: 21. 

(4.) Their elders seem to have had command of their own 
time; as they collected from time to time, to deliberate upon 
national affairs, and went in associated capacities to negotiate 
with Pharaoh. (Exod. 3: 16. 4: 28.) 

(5.) Their females doubtless had their own time; and 
E 



S4 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOTHT. 

employed it in their own domestic affairs. When Pharaoh's 
daughter would procure a nurse for Moses, she hired a Hebrew 
woman; saying: "Take this child away and nurse it for me, 
and I will give thee thy wages." Exod. 2: 9. These facts, 
with others that might be enumerated, prove that their bone? 
service consisted simply in a requirement by law, that their 
males should pay an oppressive tax in labor, just as the sub- 
jects of the Pasha of Egypt now do, only it is not so grievous 
as was that of the Israelites. But note this, even for this 
oppression, which was not so great as that of the Africans in- 
cur country, (for here a man may not own himself, the wife 
of his bosom, or child of his body,) God heard the cry of 
his people, and avenged their wrongs, with fire that played in 
their pathway, with blood that rolled in their rivers, with death 
that brooded in their chambers. And would God teach that 
people whose memories v/ere yet fresh with the visitations of 
his wrath upon the oppressor, to institute a system of bondage' 
still more galling? — one that would reach even to the soul? 
Believe not then reader, that he designed that the word bond-- 
man, as here used, should denote a Slave. 

2d. Every reader of the original Hebrew, knows that the 
word "f&ec/," a form of which is here rendered bondman, is 
generally translated servant; and denotes one who performs 
service for another; iviihout regard to the time for lohich^ 
or principle upon lohich, he does service. 

The word '■'■ebed^'' alone, does not determine \X\Q nature of 
the servitude: for it may mean — 

(1 .) One who performs of his own choice, a willing service 
for God: as, Christ for God. (Isa. 42: 1.) 

(2.) Those voluntarily doing service for their fellow menj 
yet owning themselves. See 1 Kings 12: 7, Exod. 21: 5. 

(3.) Those who pay tax, or tribute, for the support of 
Government. See 1 Kings 12: 7, 1 Sam. 8: 17. 

(4.) To designate military officers, see 2 Kings 5: 6, yet, 
from verse 1 st, we learn that he was captain of the host of 
the king of Syria. 

(5.) As a term of respect: like our word "Sir," " Humble 
Servant;" as in Gen. 44: 24 and 42: 10. Yet, Jacob and 
his sons were residents of another country; not even the 
subjects of the Egyptian Government: much less the prop- 
erty of any individual. 

(6.) Those who are deprived of personal ownership, with- 
out their consent, before and after age: — those who are slaves;- 
as iu the case of Joseph. (Gen. 39: 17.) 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY* 35 

(7.) And lastly, those who, as in Josh. 9: 34, are required 
by law to perforin service for the house of God, yet owning 
themselves, having personal protection: — protection of prop- 
erty, character, — all absohile rights, — paying only, like other 
subjects, a tax, or revenue. 

The connection in ivhich the term is used, the nature of 
the subject to which it is applied, or the law of the land., 
only can fix the import ivhich is to be applied to it. It may 
be asked then; why, have our translators translated the word 
"ebed,^^ by the term bondman? We answer, — from the 
connection, they saw the service to be rendered was fixed, 
or regulated by law. But not therefore Slavery, as we have 
already seen. 

The term may be used also, to distinguish the relation of 
the "efi^c/," from that of the '■^sahir ;''^ or hired servant. — 
Much has been said about these terms being used in the Bible 
in contradistinction; and the difference between, has been 
inferred, to be the relation of Slave, — and hireling. That 
there was a difference, and an important one, no man denie?. 
But, that that difference was the relation of Slave, andyrce- 
?nan, we do deny. There Vv^as a difference. 

(1.) The "saJdr^'' labored during a period, fixed not by lau\ 
but by special contract. He seems not to have engaged 
longer than a day; or at farthest, three years. See Deut. 
24: 14, 15, com. Isa. 15: 14. 

(2.) He was paid daily, or at short intervals. (Deut. xxiv. 
14, 15.) 

(3.) He had no connection with the family where he 
labored; and might be uncircumcised. (Exod. xii. 44, 45.) 

The relation of the "ebed," might be entirely different ; 
though not that of a Slave. 

(1.) "His term of service, (when that service was not the 
punishment of theft,*) was fixed by law at six years; or it 
might be until the year of Jubilee; as seen in Exod. 21:2, 
Lev. 25: 54. 

(2.) Instead of daily wages, he received a sum agreed upon 
at the beginning of his engagement. This was called "the 

* The Hcbixws, as we do, graduated penalties according to the magni- 
tude of offence; and did not arbitrarily punish all cases of theft with the 
same offence. Tlieft for an ox was punished with a greater penalty than, 
the stealing of a sheep. Hence, when one was sold Ibr tlieft, it was until 
his services should bring the amount required. 



86 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMV. 

money of his purchase :" — see Lev. 25: 51. If a minor, 
the money probably went to his Father: — see Exod. 21: 7. 
He received also a home, food, and clothing. If he left at 
the end of six years, he was furnished liberally out of the 
flock, the floor, and the wine press. (Deut. 15: 14.) 

(3.) He was circumcised — became a member, both of his 
master's family, and of the church of God. This was the 
condition of becoming an ^'ebed.'^ See Exod. 12: 44, com- 
pared with verse 48. Thus he became a Jew: — was "made 
a Jev/;" and entitled tq the privileges of a Je\v. See Ester 
8: 17. 

A bond servant then is one Vy'ho is required by law to 
perform service for another. The master may have only ?i 
lease-hold title to his service, for a given lime; as with our 
bound hoy, or hound girl. 

We nov/ notice the vvord Buy. For the import of this 
word, we again refer our readers to our third chapter; where 
it is examined. The original word is Kana. Its primary 
signification is, to procure, to ohtain: — the law of the land, 
and nature of the subject to which it is applied, determines 
the nature of the tenure acquired. Using it in its primary 
sense, Eve said, (Gen. 4: 1,) "I have gotten (Kanithe) a 
man from the Lord." She accordingly named him Cain,, 
(kayin,) that is, obtained, acquired. But we do not under- 
stand that she paid a price ; nor that there was a transfer 
of ownership, nor that Cain was held as property. Again, 
Prov. 15: 32, "He that hearelh reproof, getteth (kanah) 
understanding." Here there is not a transfer of ownership. 
The nature of the subject forbids it. 

Again, it is used to denote a leasehold title to service for a 
given period of time: as in Exod. 21: 2, "If thou buy (tith 
kena) a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the 
seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Here the law of 
the land limits the acquisition to a leasehold title for six years. 
"He was not to be held as a possession, but a mere temporary 
subject." "You own not the man, but his service, for ia 
limited period." 

Also, Lev. 25: 47-54. Here was a tenure of service until 
^he year of Jubilee; and the servant sold himself, or his 
service, until the year of Jubilee. Let the reader turn to the 
passages and read for himself. Now this leasehold service 
for a definite period of time, ivas the service bought by the 
Jews of the ''Ileafhen round about them.'^ And this ia the 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 37 

signification of the word Buy; as used in the text under 
consideration. 

The word is also used in a secondary sense, to denote 
transfer of ownership, and absolute control; as in Gen. 49: 
30; where Abraham is said to have bought thetield, and cave 
of Ephron the Ililtite. And also where the people are said 
to have bought corn of Joseph. In the latter case the nature 
of the subject admitted the transfer of ownership; and the 
laws of the land did not limit the manner of use, or time of 
ownership. But as we shall see, they did restric/ both, in 
the case of the "cicf/," — servant. Then Kana should be 
here rendered according to its primary import, — procure. 
And the reading of the 44th verse is this: "Both thy servant 
men, and servant maids shall be of the Heathen round about 
you; of, or from them, shall ye procure servant men and 
servant maids." Or, if we will use the word buy, then we 
must use it as it is used in Exodus 21:2, and other places, 
denoting leasehold property., — a claim to his service for a 
definite period. JVe use it so, when we say we have bought 
an Irish emigrant, who was too poor to pay his passage 
money. We have simply a claim to his service, until he 
shall have rendered an equivalent for tlie money we have 
advanced. 

We next notice the words Possession, and Inheritance. 

"Ye shall take them for a possession." A living divine 
says this word is "invariably used to signify ownership in 
landed estates; not transient, but permanent possessions." 
Now we shall show from the word of God that it is not so.* 
We do not deny that possession, when applied to land, 
houses and the like, denotes property tenure; and may mean 

* The same autkor, (Dr. Judkins,) says the word as here used denotes 
perpetuity of property in man. And yet in immediate connection, he 
Siiys, "I have not said it is right, to hold man as property.' "Neither,"' 
says he, ''as I suppose, has God affirmed it to be riglit.'' "All I affirna 
is, that God's law has permitted it to Israel.'' 

Reader do you bolieve God would permit, and incorporate into an 
established law for his people, what he knew to be wrong? for if it be 
not right, it must have been wrong. The Dr. says, God has no where 
sanctioned Slavery. Eut that he tolerates Slavery. "Now toleration," 
says he, "implies that the thing is viewed as an evil:"' and yet should be 
permitted in the church of God; see pam. pages 38, 43, and 71. 

For a full exposition of the Dr.'s false positions, and false reasoning, 
see a review of his pamphlet on the subject of Slavery, by Rev. T. E. 
Thomas, of Hamilton. Ohio. 



38 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

absolute control. But this we claim also, that it is often (as 
when applied to God and to men,) used in a restricted, and 
different sense. For example, see Ezek. 44: 28; where God 
says; "I am their inheritance, and ye shall give them no 
possession in Israel: I am their possession.'' Now every 
reader must see, that both the words possession and inherit- 
ance, as applied to God, cannot mean property possession in 
the Lord Jehovah. No man owns God. Here then we see 
it is used in a restricted sense. This is clear. As applied to 
man, neither the term possession, nor inheritance, always 
denote property possession. See 2 Sam. 20: 1. "We have 
no part in David; neither have we inheritance in the sons of 
Jesse." The word inheritance means, they would have no 
connection with David, or rather, his son Rehoboam. Again, 
the reader is requested to notice. Isa. 14: 1,2; where the proph- 
et, speaking of the return of the Jews from captivity in Baby- 
lon, says: "the strangers," — (the Babylonians,) "will be 
joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of 
Jacob'. And Israel shall possess them in the land of the 
Lord for servants and hand maids;" &c. The truth 
declared here is, that many of the Babylonians would embrace 
the Jewish religion — v/ould cleave to Jacob of their own 
choice, and to do so, would have to become members of Jew- 
ish families, and be circumcised: — "would be induced to 
become proselytes; to be loiUing to accompany them to their 
own homes, and to become their servants there." See Barnes' 
comment on this passage. Here possession denotes the 
willing, or voluntary service the Babylonians would render 
to the^Jeivs: And thus become willing "captives," or subjects 
to those, who were once in bondage to the Babylonians. Here 
the Jews d.d not literally capture these strangers, and compel 
them to involuntary servitude; but these strangers ''clave unto 
Jacob.'" 

'^'Possession then may denote a voluntary service; and 
that not of a Slave or chattel. Remember this. 

Once more, under thishead,see Gen. 47: 11. "And Joseph 
placed his father and brethren, and gave them a possessio7i 
in the land of Egypt." In what sense had they possession 
in the land of Egypt? Answer: in the sense of having it to 
live in, or use for a season; as the connection teachss us. In 
verse 4 they, (the brethren of Joseph) said unto Pharaoh, 
"for to sojourn in the land are we come." Not literally to 
possess the land of Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 39 

"the land of Egypt is before thee, in the best of the land 
make thy father and brethren to dwell.'''' — Not possess. 
Here their possession consisted in the use of the land, as a 
place to sojourn, and procure sustenance, 

)So the possession of the Jew consisted in the use of the 
SERVANT — a claim to his service for a definite period: — not a 
literal property tenure in his person. This we think, will 
be clear to any mind by noticing Lev. 35: 45 "Moreover, of 
the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of 
them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with youj 
which they begat in your land: and they shall be your pos- 
session.^' By reading the first part of the chapter, you will 
see that this law was prospective of what the Jew should do 
when he entered the land of Canaan. At that time strangers 
would be dwelling in the land with families born there. They 
became property holders, and might even buy a Jew, (Levi 
25: 47) and there was "one manner of law for the stranger 
as for the Jew." (Lev. 24: 22.) Now who sold tliese free 
property holders, with their rights equally protected with 
those of the Jew? The Jew dare not seize him and sell him; 
This would be punished with death, as we shall hereafter see; 
There was no power to sell these strangers but that of them- 
selves. Evidently then, they sold their service for six years, 
or to the year of Jubilee. Yet this voluntary service is called 
a possession, in the same verse. This is a strong point, 
and there is no escaping it; for the Jews as certainly were to 
procure their servants from amongst the strangers living, and 
born in their landj as from the nations around them. Should 
the purchaser die before the time expired, then the servant or 
stranger would continue to serve the children or family of the 
Jew until the amount of service contracted for should be ren- 
dered. And thus he would become an inheritance to the 
children. "Possession and inheritance," here, evidently mean 
the service v/hich the JevVs would regularly procure from 
those Gentiles around them and amongst them; the Gentiles 
or strangers voluntarily rendering it. Other writers suppose 
that Moses by saying to the Jews "they shall be your posses- 
sion and inheritance,^' meant simply this ; 'your supply of 
service, to you and your children, shall continually be from 
the strangers among you and the nations around you.' This 
view, will not be contradictory to the above — is only another 
mode of expressing it, and as we shall hereafter see, will sui* 
the context — the subject matter about which Moses was 



40 SERVITUDE UNDER THE SIOSAIC ECONOMt'. 

speaking. It has been stated, that a po-^session did not go out 
at the Jubilee. Tliis is not true, as may be seen by examin- 
ing Lev. 27; 16-31. 

Let us now notice the last point in defence of Slavery, as 
drawn from the passage under consideration. It is the term 
FOREVER. This' is supposed to be a "chncher," and to fix, 
or teach the right of perpetual property in man. Such is not 
the doctrine, o^ duty here taught; as I hope to make plain to 
every reader. And whilst Tshall address myself chiefly to 
the reader of English, yet I remark: 1. Every reader of the 
original Hebrew knows, that the words, as spoken by Moses, 
are'' these: "Always," — "forever with them shall ye serve 
yourselves," — (le olam baham taabodu:) or "always ye 
shall serve yourselves with them.'' That is, as long as ye 
shall procure servants, ye shall procure them from among the 
Heathen;* 

2. Every English reader, who has a copy of the Polyglott 
Bible, published by the American Bible Society, can see in 
the margin most of the same correction. Then, if he will go 
back a few verses and notice the connection, he will see that 
this rendering or translation harmonizes with the subject about 
which Meses was speaking. He was not speaking about 
perpetuity of property in man; but about the class or 

NATION OF PEOPLE FROM WHOM THEY SHOULD ALWAYS GET 

THEIR SERVANTS. Accordingly, he says: Both thy servant- 
men and servant-women, (or "bond men and bond maids") 
which ye shall have, shall be of the Heathen round about 
you" — "ye shall always serve yourselves with them: but 
over the children of Israel, ye shall not rule," &c. : — As 
though he had said, the Heathen are the class of people from 
whom ye shall obtain your servants, for thereby they will be 
brought into the church, and made acquainted with the true 
God: Reader, pause until the above truth is fixed in your 
mind. Let this truth be remembered, and the argument will 
always swing clear — the great difficulty be removed. 

Again we must see that Moses did not design to teach per- 
petual property in man, because — 

(1.) Neither the master or the slave could live "forever," or 
perpetually. But does the objector say, "he meant by forever 

* Barnes in his late work on Slavery, speaking concerning this text 
says, '-all that is fairly implied in this text is, that the permanent provis- 
ion for servants was not that they were to enslave or employ their 
trethren, the Hebrews, but that they were to employ foreigners."' 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 4 1 

as long as the master and servant lived?" Then I say that 
he, like Dr. Junkin, at once admits that forever is here to be 
used in a limited sense: — the point claimed in our next 
remark. And according to the argument of the objector, for- 
ever may be limited, not merely to the year of Jubilee, but to 
one day; or to six months; for the servant and master may 
both die that soon. 

(2.) Moses knew the Jubilee would necessarily limit, and 
close the period of service of the servant: and could not there- 
fore have meant to teach, (even if his words were arranged 
as men generally read them,) perpetual property in man. In 
the preceding part of the chapter, (verse 10,) we have the 
institution of the Jubilee, given by himself, to the same people 
in these words; "ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- 
claim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants 
thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return 
et'cr^ man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man 
unto his family." — (Lekol yoshbeha, to all inhabiting her; 
that is, the land.) Now liberty being proclaimed to all the 
inhabitants thereof, and "every man returned to his family," 
how could any be held in perpetual bondage? 

Nor is the phrase, "lo all those inhabiting her," or "to all 
the inhabitants thereof," to be limited to Jews only; as some 
teach. The Bible usage of the word ''inhabitants,'' means, 
most generally, all those living in a land or place; whether 
Jews or Gentiles — land possessors or not. It is used often 
to denote all that dwell upon the earth. Ps. 33: 8. "Let all 
the inhabitants of the earth stand in awe of him:" that is, 
God. Also, verse 14, "He" (the Lord) "looketh upon all 
the inhabitants of the earth." Again it is used to denote 
Gentiles, as well as Jews, inhabiting the same land. 1 Chron. 
9: 2. ^ "Now die inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions 
in their cities, were, the Israelites, the Priest, Levites, and the 
NethinimsJ" Here the Nethinims, though Gentiles, were 
called inhabitants of the land. Barnes, in his work on Slavery, 
speaking of the import of the Hebrew word which in the 
text is translated inhabitants says, "the word is used in tho 
Bible eleven hundred times, and there is no word which would 
more naturally embrace all that abode in a country Irom any 
cause whatever. Any dweller, any inhabitant, any one who 
resides in a place, any one who sojourns, any one who 
remains only for a short time, or any one who has a pcrma- 
neut residence would be embraced by this word." The term 
F 



42 SERvlTl'DK UNDER THE MOSAIC ECQNOMr. 

then included all living in the land, and were bound in any way 
to service. 

(3.) Another fact; proving that the Gentile servants went 
out at the Jubilee. Every one becoming an ebed, or bond 
servant, had to be circumcised. Gen. 17: 13, Exod. 12: 44. 
In so doing, he became a Jew: Ester, 8: 17, and entitled to 
the privileges of a Jew. — SeeCalmet. A.rt. Proselyte. Drs. 
Lardner and Jennings believe there were none who could 
Avilh propriety be styled proselytes, save those who fully 
embraced the Jewish religion. "These engaged tliemselves 
to receive circumcision and to observe the whole law of 
Moses. Thus they were admitted to all the privileges of the 
people of the l^ord." — Watson. "Foreign servants, as well 
as Hebrew servants were to be initiated into the Hebrew 
religion; and, when willing, they were to be received as mem- 
bers of the Hebrew community; and thus received, they were 
entitled to all the privileges and immunities of native Hebrews 
— for there was to be but one law for the converted stranger 
and the native Hebrew."— C. E. Stowe, D. D. Would these 
proselytes — these adopted Jews be denied the privileges of 
the Jubilee? Would it not be a solemn farce to adopt these 
Gentiles into the church, and then cut them off from the 
privileges of the church? 

Nor will it avail any thing to say 'this release was a civil 
institution; and because the servant was brought into the 
church, and entitled to all the privileges of the church, it does 
not therefore follow that he was entitled to all civil privileges.' 
To this we reply, we have already seen that this year of 
release secured freedom to all, and it matters not whether it 
was a civil, or a religious institution. It put an end to servi- 
tude — the point now under consideration. 2. The institutions 
of Sabbatical years and the Jubilee, were pre-eminently reli- 
gious institutions; as certainly so as our Sabbath now is. The 
Gentile servant then being adopted into the church, would be 
entitled to the privileges of the church. If the Jewish servant 
Avent out free at the year of release, the proselyte did also. 

Agam, the Jubilee was typical. "The Jubilee commencing 
on the great day of the Atonement, typified the acceptable 
year of the Lord, (Luke 4: 18, 19,) the Gospel dispensation." 
This is a general admitted fact with commentators. The 
Atonement was typical of that atonement or propitiation, 
which was made for the "sins of the whole ivorld." (1 John 
2: 2.) The glad sound of the liberty trumpets was a type of 



5ERTIT1TDE T7XDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY, 43 

that Gospel. dispensation, which is "good tidings of great 
joy to ALL PEOPLE." (Lukc 2: 10.) Now, is this atonement, 
and this Gospel hberty offered to Gentiles as well as Jews? 
Every Bible reader knows it is. So was the sound of the 
Jubilee trumpets to the Gentile servants, as well as to Jews. 

One design of the Jubilee, sa)'s Calmet, was to prevent 
perpetual Slavery. Hear his words : " The object of the 
Jubilee was to prevent the rich from oppressing the poor, and 
from reducing them to perpetual Slavery." Josephus, who 
was a Jew and lived before the tinal destruction of the Mosaic 
economy, says that even the ear-bored servant, who in Exod. 
21: G, is said to "serve forever," went free at the Jubilee. — 
These are his wordis: "If any one be sold to one of his own 
nation, let him serve him six years and on the seventh let 
him go free, but if he have a son by a woman servant in his 
purchaser's house, and if, ou account of his good nnll to his 
master, and his natinxd 'affection to his wife and children," 
(not by force as we do,) "he will be servant slill; let him be 
set free only at the coming of the year of Jubilee; ^wA let him 
tiien take away with him his children and wife, and let them 
he free also." A.nd note this, all agree, even Dr. Junkiii 
himself, that the woman serving the purchaser, was a Gen- 
tile: yet not only did this husband, who is said to "servo 
forever," go free, but this Gentile woman and her children: — ■ 
Proving two points, (1) that the word forever is sometimes 
used in a limited sense; and (2) that the Gentiles, as well as 
Jews, went out free at the Jubilee. By consequence Moses 
could not, in the text under consideration, have designed to 
teach perpetuity of property in man; but simply the class of 
people, from ivhom they should procure their servants. — 
Barnes says the language which is employed in Lev, 25: 46, 
"ihey shall be your bondmen forever," does not of necessity 
imply that this refers to tlic perpetual bondage of the individ- 
ual Slave. It could not at all events be literally true, nor is 
it necessarily meant even that the individual was to be a Slave 
till his death." 'J'he same language precisely is used of the 
Hebrew servant whj liaJ his ear bored, yet we have seen 
iJiat he went out free at the Jubdee. If limited in the one 
ease, it may be in the other. The two following authorities 
are given by Barnes. — Rabbi Solomon says, "Thou shall pro- 
claim liberty to the eervants whether the ear had been perfo- 
rated with an awl or not, or whether the six years had not 
been completed from the lime when they were purchased." 



44 SERVITrDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECO\0>n.\ 

Maimonidcs says, '-The servant who was sick as tlie year of 
Jubilee comes in, becomes free. When a servant who sells him- 
self, or who was sold by the court" (this was done for theft, 
Exod. 22: 8,) "made an attempt to escape, he was held to 
make up for these years, but he was set at liberty at the year 
of Jubilee." "The year of Jubilee made all servants free 
without exception." This, says Barnes, is the opinion of the 
most distinguished Jewish Rabbins, and in his book he gives 
the authorities. Cruden, on the word eternal, says: "the words 
eternal, everlasting, and forever, are sometimes taken for a 
long time, and are not to be tinderstood strictly ; as for 
example Gen. 17: 8." "And in many other portions of 
Scripture, and in particular when the word forever is applied 
to the Jeu'ish rites and privileges, it commonly signifies no 
more than the standing of that commomcealth, or until the 
coming oi the Messiah, Exod. 12: 14, 17, Num. 10: 8." — 
Gesseneus says : "the term is often applied to the Jewish 
priesthood; to the Mosaic ordinances, to the possession of 
the land of Canaan, to the time of service to be rendered by 
a Slave." Parkhurst says that Olam (Forever) denotes 
"sometimes the period of time to the Jubilee," and cites 
Exod. 21: 6, Deut. 15: 17 as proof. The learned Bishop 
Horsley says, " the man is ignorant of Jewish technical 
terms, who does not know that the term forever, as used in 
this text (Lev. 25: 40,) means no more than to the year of 
Jubilee." Quoted by Thomas. Then, take which reading 
we will; either our common version, as given by King James; 
or the reading as above given, (and found in the language in 
which Moses spake it,) we are forced in either case, to use 
the word forever in a secondary, or restricted sense; denoting 
tmiformity of custom, and limited duration. Such usage is 
common with us, and in the Bible. No phrases are more 
common with us than these: "The Northern preachers are 
forever harping on Slavery." "My relations in Ohio are 
ahcays teasing me about my Slaves." "Such an one is 
forever dabbling in politics." " When I go to the city of 

, I always put up at the Broadway Hotel." "John Q. 

Adams is forever troubling Congress with his abolition peti- 
tions." In these, and like examples, we use the word forever 
and always, denoting uniformity of custom or practice, as 
long as the parties meet or live. So it is sometimes used in 
the Bible. 

Thus, 1 Kings 12: 7. The counsellors said to Rehoboam 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECOXOMY. 45 

"the people will be thy servants forever." Now the coun- 
sellors (lid not expect Rehoboam to live as king perpetually, 
nor that tlic' people as subjects would live perpetually. All 
that any man here understands by the term forever, is that 
continually, as long as the parties lived or existed, the people 
would serve him. The case is a very clear one, and much to 
the point under consideration. Again, (1 Chron. 23: 1.3,) we 
are told that Aaron and his sons were set apart "to burn 
incense before the Lord forever." Now, neither Aaron nor 
his sons lived perpetually to offer incense; and two of them, 
Nadab and Abihu, were consumed by fire from the Lord for 
their impiety. What then is here meant by the term forever? 
This, as every reader must clearly see, that continually, and 
as long as they lived, this work should be their duty and 
employ. Again, (1 Sam, 27: 12,) Achish said concerning 
David, "therefore he shall be my servant forever;" that is, 
soldier in my employ; for, in Ch. 28: 2, Achish said to David; 
"Therefore will I make thee keeper of mine head forever;" 
that is, my body guard. Here again forever means continu- 
ally, and as long as the parties should live, David should thus 
serve Achish. Once more: — "Elisha said to Gehazi; the 
leprosy of Naaman shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed 
forever." 2 Kings 5: 27. Now, we do not understand that the 
disease of leprosy would go with them into the " spirit 
world;" but that continually, and as long as they lived, it 
should be upon them. So continiiaUy, and as long as the 
Jews existed as a nation, and did procure servants, they 
were to procure them from the Heathen round about them. 
Whilst the above is true; this also is true: — The primary 
signification of forever is perpetual duration — unlimited dura- 
tion: and such we are always to understand when it is used, 
unless the nature of the subject to which it is applied, the 
connectton in ichich it is tised, or the laws of the land forbid. 
Then like other words it may be restricted. This every 
scholar knows. Now in the case before us, the connection, 
and laws of the land, previously instituted, positively forbid 
that we should use it, save in that secondary, or restricted 
sense, so often used in the Bible. The connection shows 
that Moses was simply teacliing the Jews the class of people 
from whom they should procure their servants: and the Jubi- 
lee previously instituted, together with other laws defining 
the nature of the servitude, proves that Moses had no design 
here to teach absolute ownership, and perpetuity of possession 



46 SF.RVITUDE r\DKR TIIK MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

in man; but tliis, 'Both thy bondaien and bondmaids shall be 
of the Heal hen round about you; ye shall always serve your- 
selves whht/icm, for thereby the Heathen will be profited by 
being brought into the church, and God glorified.' The 
institution was not a scllish system, securing the good of the 
Jew at the expense of the Heathen. The good was mutual, 
but especially was the good of the Heathen servant secured ; 
this we shall see by noticing the naiurc of the servitude to 
be rendered. 

H. Nature of the Servitude. 

In dcciiling whether Slavery was found m the Mosaic 
Economy, we must keep distinctly before our minds what 
constitutes Slavery. We must be careful not to confound 
Slavery with other relations that are lawful and innocent. It 
is an abuse of language, and it is dishonesty in reasoning, to 
apply the same term to relations entirely distinct in nature, 
and effects. That only is Slavery, as you saw in our first 
chapter, which includes involuntary service, and property 
tenure in man. Was this found in the servitude regulated 
and defined by the laws of Moses? We answer, it was not. 
The servitude in the case of adults was entered upon volun- 
tarily; and the purchaser had no property tenure in man; 
but only a claim to his service for a definite period of time; 
as men now have in apprentices, or bound boys. Much 
depends upon sustaining this position, which we believe may 
be clearly and forcibly done. The reader will be aided in see- 
ing it, bv remembering that words and phrases vary in their 
import in different ages, and countries. We are now in the 
habit of attaching the idea of absolute property, to any thing 
which is said to be bought. But as we have shown, in the 
days of Moses, as it used to be in our own country, when an 
icidividual bound himself by law to perform service for an- 
other, for six years, or until the year of Jubilee, this voluntary 
engagement was often CKpi-essed by the varied forms of the 
verb to buy. The servant who bound hiniself to perform 
service to certain periods of time, for a certain amount, was 
said to be sold, and the master or man by whom his services 
were engaged, was said to have bought him. Yet the servant 
was voluntary. Thus: 

the jew sold himself. 

Moses, speaking to the children of Israel (Lev. 25: 47) 
said, "And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 4T 

thy brother that dwcUcth by huii, wax poor, and sell himself 
to the stranger or sojourner by thee," &c. Here the Jew 
engaged his services only until the year of Jubilee, as you 
will see by reading the verses that follow. The Jew received 
the wages due for his service; for if at any time, between 
that and the Jubilee> he wished to redeem himself, he could do 
so by "giving again the price of his redemption, out of the 
money that he was bought fori" (v. 51.) 

Again, in verse 39, we have the case of a Jew who sold 
himself to a fellow Jew. In our present translation, the lan- 
guage is, "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee, be waxen 
poor, and be sold unto thee," &Ci By the words "be sold," 
is to be understood that he "sold himself." For, 

1. In the original Hebrew the same word (venimkar) is 
used, which is used in v. 47, and there translated "sell him- 
self." 

2, He had committed no crime for which he should be sold 
by the Judges, but was like the Jew, in v. 47, poor and wanted 
something for himself and family — a home until the Jubilee. 
And such he got, as the context shows. It is clear then, that 
the Jewish servant was voluntary in his servitude, cxcnivhen 
he was said to "6e sold.'''' 

So, under the Mosaic Economy, 

THE STRANGER OR GENTILE SOLD HIMSELF. 

In the same chapter from which we have been quoting (Lev. 
25: 45,) will be found these words: "Moreover, of the child- 
ren of the stranger that do so sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye buy, and of their families that are witli you, which 
they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." 
These strangers dwelt amongst the Jews, just as Germans and 
Irish do among the native citizens of our Republic. They 
might become property holders, and even buy a Jew, just as 
a Jew might buy a stranger; — ^that is, his service up to a given 
time. See Lev. 25: 47, as above quoted. The property and 
liberty of these strangers were protected equally with that of 
the Jew. "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the 
stranger as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord 
your God." (Lev. 24: 22.) "Thou shah neither vex a 
stranger, nor oppress him:" and this enforced by the consider'' 
alien, "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Exodi 
22: 21.) The strangers then were freemen with their rights 
as well protected, as those of the Jew: yet, of, or from aiiiongs! 



48 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

these strangers, sojourning in their land, and born in their land, 
did the Jew buy, or procure his servants. Now who sold 
these freemen — that is, their service to a given time? There 
was no power in Judca, as we shall see hereafter, aside from 
themselves, that dare do it. Who sold these li-eemen? ! Will 
you try to evade the point by saying it was the children of 
these sojourners that were sold to the Jew? Then we reply 

(1.) The ptoof Ues with you. 

(2.) If they were, tlien the Jew was required by law, to 
circumcise it: (Gen. 17: 13.) This made the child a Jew» 
"entided to all the prerogatives of a Jew." — Watson. And 
as they had "One manner of law, as well for the stranger as 
for one of your own country," it is clear that this child, like 
the child of the Jew, and like a bound child in our land, 
Went out free when it attained the age of a freeman. And 
there is no proof to the contrary. And we do not deny the 
1-ight of a parent to place his child in a bond service. But, 

'^(3.) The inference is as clear that the phrase, "children of 
the stranger," in this verse, means adult strangers, as that the 
phrase "children of Israel," in the next verse, means adult 
Israelites. And then to settle all doubt, the verse explains 
itself, by telling us that these persons, designated by the phrase 
"children of the stranger," had "families," which they "begat 
in your land:" and as it is a thing unheard of, for babies to 
have families, it is clear, that by the phrase "ehiklren of the 
stranger" is meant adult strangers. Then take h either way, 
whether the Jew bought parent or child, in neither case did 
he buy one who was already a Slave. Many, even of those 
who are anti-slavery men, believe that tliose servants bought 
or procured from "amongst the Heathen, were, when first 
bought by the Jew, Slaves; but afterwards became free by 
force of the Jewish laws and religion. Yet here is a case 
where the stranger was a Jree man, and as certainly sold 
himself, (that is his services for a definite period of ti.ne,) as 
ever a Jew did. Had these "strangers," or "sojourners " 
been Slaves, they could not have either sold themselves, that 
is their service, nor that of their families. Yet, from both 
these strangers and their families were the Jews to procure 
help, or service. They must therefore have been freemen, 
in order to sell themselves: that is their service for a given 
lime. 

I ask again, who sold these strangers? There was no 
jiower in Judca that dare do it. Flaming from JMount Sinai 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 49 

came the law, "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if 
he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death:" 
(Exod 21: 16) — "God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding 
the entrance to the Mosaic system." But do you say this 
means that one man should not steal a servant or Slave from 
another man. Then we answer, it would have been written, 
he that stealeth a Servant or Slave — not "he that stealeth a 
man." 

2. The Hebrew word (Gunabh) is one that means, not 
merely secret purloining, but also open violence and robbery. 
It is the word used in Gen. 40: 15, where Joseph says, "I 
indeed was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." — 
It is the word that is used to designate the robbery of liberty 
— the chattelizing of man. Jarclii, one of the oldest of the 
Jewish commentators, giving the import of this stealing and 
making merchandise of men, gives the meaning thus : — 
"Using a man against his will, as a servant lawfully (i. e. by 
human law) "purchased; yea, though he should use his ser- 
vices ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but 
his arm to lean on to support him, if he be forced so to act 
as a servant, the person compelling him but once to do so, 
shall die as a thief, whether he has sold him or not." — Quoted 
from Bushes commentary. Involuntary servitude could not 
enter Israel by sanction of her laws. It was death to rob a 
man of his liberty, or even to hold him after he was robbed 
by others. 

3. If the command had recognised the right of property 
in man by the master, and was simply guarding the property 
of the master, then it would have demanded a different pen- 
alty. It would have atoned for the crime by requiring, as in 
other cases, a property punishment. It was a principle in 
the Jewish law, that where property was taken, the thief 
should return an increased amount of property; and if he had 
not the property, then he was to be sold until his services 
would pay the amount. See Exod. 22: 1-3. But where 
liberty was taken, and thus violence done to manhood, and 

»^the image of God, then death was the penalty. When a 
nf^ murdered his fellow man, he robbed him of liberty; done 
violence (o manhood, and the image of God. So when he 
enslaved him, as he inflicted on him a like wrong — robbed 
him of liberty, done violence to manhood, and the image of 
God, — on the aggressor was inflicted a like penalty — death. 
Here, whilst yet at the foot of the smoking Mount, where 
G 



50 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMr. 

was heard the voice of the Almighty — inscribed as it were 
Hpon the frontlet of the nation's existence, was the foundatiors 
truth, man as man otvns himself. And as personal owner- 
ship, is the dearest of all rights — that in which all others 
inhere, it should be guarded by the severest of all penalties 
— death. By all tlien that was dear to a Jew in time and iis 
eternity, he dare not seixe the stranger, or rob him of hi» 
hberty. The stranger then, must have sold himself. But 
do you say, although the Jew might mot seize the strangerj, 
and enslave hivn, yet he might buy those who had already 
been seized and enslaved, by the nations around them? We 
answer, the above command (Exod. 21: 16) as eftectually 
excluded Slave holding, as it did Slave making. It punished 
the perpetuation of the ei-ime, v/ith the same penalty that it 
did the beginning of it. Not only he that stealeth and selleth 
a man, '■'■but if he be found in his hands, he shall be put to 
death." * If the Jew had not first stolen him — if some other 
had stolen him and sold him to the Jew, yet if this stolen 
man was "found in his hands" — if the Jew was found guilty 
of perpetuating the crime, he w~as alike i& be punished with 
death. Now this truth was consistent with reason — the 
standard of justice the world over. The world has decided 
that the sharer, or withholder of stolen goods, is as guilty as 
the original thief. How would it look I Oh how v/ould it 
look ! ! in the eyes of Justice, for Moses to make a law for- 
bidding the Jews to steal horses, yet give them another law 
allowing them to buy those that they knew were stolen.. Th?.6 
man owns himself'^ the Jew knew: and fresh before his mind 
was the vindication of this sacred right, by that stretched out 
arm of the Almighty, that scattered the corpses of the Egyp- 
tian oppressors, like stranded wrecks, upon the bosom of the 
Red Sea. The Jew then, no more dare touch a stolen maa» 
(that is, with intention to continue him in Slavery,) than he 
dare seize a freeman, and enslave him. The participant would 
be just as e-riminal, as the first perpetrator of the act. And 
it did not then, any more than noio, require the wisdom of a 
Solomon to see it.t 



* The passage inDeut.24:7. u a specific law, having reference to 
only; whilst thisis ageneral law having reference to all men. 

I The position of Dr. Rice, and many of the American people, is, 
that to seize a man in a state of freedom, and enslave him, is an "un- 
righteous thing:'' but if another man has seized the enslaved one, and 
robbed him of his liberty, then we, by transferring to the robber a litt'e 
money, may continue to rob the eushtved one of his liberty, and be- 
tameless. 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 5i 

But do you again say the Slaves sold to the Jews, were 
captives, taken in war by the surrounding nations? To this 
we reply, 

(1.) 'i'he position lacks one essential thing; and Uiat is, 
proof — It is mere supposition. 

(2.) This is ouly another narae for kidnapping, or man 
stealing — Is indeed the way Slaves are now kidnapped, on 
the coast of Africa. And the American people, say it is 
Piracy — a crime which they say, as the Jewish law did, shall 
be PUNISHED WITH DEATH. It is not, and never was right. 
A.nd if the Jew did get his servants in that way, the Slaves 
NOW living in our land, were not obtained in that way. They 
are unoffending persons. The example of the Jew then, 
would be worth nothing to us. But, 

(3.) The text (Lev. 25: 45) which we have now under 
consideration, tells us that the Jew was not only to procure 
his servants from the Heathen round about them, but from 
amongst those strangers, born, and dwelling peacefully in the 
land of the Jew. Then, when these strangers becaiae ser- 
vants to the Jews, they must have doiieso voluntariily. And 
tJiere is no evidence, that the servants who came from the 
nations round about them, came in any other way. — Indeed 
as we have seen, the law of Moses forbids that lliey should 
come in, in any other way. Then it was not only true that 
the Jew in becoming a servant, did so voluntarily — sold him- 
self, that is, his service to a given period, but the stranger 
did so. This is aii important truth — a truth which frees the 
Mosaic servitude, froiM one of the essential elements of slavery 
-^ — involuntary servitude^ We have nothing to say against 
voluntary servitude. I have it from good authority, that one 
of the wealthiest men that ever lived in Maysville, Kentucky, 
was a " stranger " — sold hiiaself, that is, his services, for 
seven years, that he might get to America, and have a little 
to start on. So a poor Jew, or Gentile might wish a home, 
where he could receive lirst, the " purchase money:" (Lev. 
35: 51,) then a good home, where, as v/e shall see, his per- 
son, his rights were protected — ^theii shielded from marauch ng 
tdbes, by the "God of battles," But voluntary servitude, 
however long, is not Slavery. 

Again, in noticing the nature oi the servitude under the 
Mosaic economy, we remark: — Whether the servant of the 
Jew was voluntary in the commencement of his servitude or 
Kot, it is clear he was in the continuance of it. If it were 



52 SERVITUDE rXDER THE MOSAIC ECOXOrtlT. 

admitted that the servant was bought of a Heathen master, 
who enslaved him and sold him without his consent, it does 
not follow that the Jew held him as such: — a Slave because 
he had bought him with money. Nehemiah bought some of 
his brethren of the Persians; but did not hold them as slaves. 
The law forbade it — The context proves it. (Nehem, 5: 8.) 
A Hebrew might buy a fellow Hebrew, but he might not 
hold him as a slave. He had only a lease hold title to his 
service. (Lev. 25: 39, Exod. 21: 2.) * 

The American people have frequently bought fellow Amer- 
icans, who were taken captives by pirates or enemies. But 
they were not held as slaves by the Americans. And it ia 
clear that it a Jew even bought a slave, he could not continue 
to hold him a slave — one doomed to involuntary servitude. 
'J he testimony of Maimonides, a Jewish Rabbi; as quoted in 
our third chapter, is very pertinent, and proves the position. 
Turn and see his words: — pa. 26, 27. From this Jewish 
writer this much is clear, that whether the servant bought 
Avas first subjugated by the Heathen master and sold without 
his consent to the Jew; or whether he was one who came 
from among the Heathen, and sold himself, (that is his service,) 
he might not in either case, continue to he a servant ivithout 
his consent. Unwilling seivice, of an adult, and innocent 
man, might not exist in Israel. "The proselyte also caused 
circumcision and baptism to be administered to his slaves,! 
under thirteen years: those of that age or older could not be 
compelled.^^ — Calmet. 

The above position may be shown again, from the rite of 
circumcision. Every servant (''ebed,^^) must necessarily be 
circumcised: — see Gen. 17: 12, Exod. 12: 44. If the servant 
refused to be circumcised, or eat leavened bread during the 
feast, or tonched any unclean thing, and refused to be cleansed 
with the "water of separation," he was "cut off," — excluded 
from Israel. (Gen. 17; 14. Exod. 12: 19. Num. 19: 16.) 

* The Jew might not deem it a sin, to redeem the Slave from Slavery, 
by placing him in a bound seivice, where, by law, his personal safety was 
secured, his religious wants, and eventually his entire liberty; as in the 
case of bound boys with ns. In this case the Jew would not be a slave- 
holder; only a redeemer arrd guardian. 

f By Slaves it is evident, from facts stated by Calmet, that he means 
only such persons, whose service had been sold tintil they were of age. for, 
as he says, these when circumcised, 'were entitled to all the prerogatives 
of the people of the Lord, as well in tliis life as the other."' 



StliVITtTDE rXhER THE MOi^AIC ECOXOJiV. 53 

The master could not hold a servant unlhotd these riles luerc 
complied ivith; and all that the servant need to do, in order 
to be from under the control of his master, was to refuse cir^ 
cumcision; or in case of trespass upon the ceremonial laws, 
refuse to be cleansed. 

But especially on the nature of the covenant, do we rely 
for proof. In this covenant he chose the Lord to be his God. 
To compel an adult to receive the covenant, would be mock- 
ery before God; just as it would be to compel an individual 
now, to receive the rite of Baptism. — " The God of Jacob 
will not accept any other than the worship of a willing heart." 
"By circumcision to boys, and baptism to girls, each of 
them by this received (as it were) a new birth; so that those 
who were before Slaves, now became free." — Calmet. It is 
preposterous then, to talk about Slavery being found in con-* 
neclion with such laws. 

Under this head we may add these additional truths. They 
were required to observe the Sabbath, celebrate the various 
feasts, and attend three times a year at Jerusalem. Were 
these duties enforced by fear of pains and penalties? Were 
they driven from all parts of the land, three times a year to 
Jerusalem; and there made to offer up mock petitions in 
woeful jargon v;ith the prayers of their masters; then again 
driven away by thousands, like beasts of burden to their fields 
of toil? Was this the passport to the communion of Saints? 
For the sake of his own, and the character of God, let no 
man say he believes it. 

Again, we prove the servitude, in continuance at least, 
must have been voluntary, by the peculiar opportunities and 
facilities they had for escape. Three time a year was every 
man required to appear at Jerusalem, before the Lord; and 
each one with an offering — see Deut. 16: 16, 17. Now in 
attending these feasts, many of them would be near, or quite 
a week in their journey up there; a week at each feast, and a 
week in returning. How did the slaveholders get their ten, 
fifty, or hundred slaves up to Jerusalem? Did they send for 
their neighbors to help drive them? And did they take turns 
by night, in keeping a sharp look-out, least any should con- 
clude to assume to himself the crime of personal ownership, 
and walk off? And if he should, were there any of those 
beings called negro-catchers, skulking along the defiles and 
narrow passes, watching for the poor man strugling for the 
lauded boon of liberty? And if so, will any of our pro-slavery 



54 SERVITUDK rXDER TTin MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

divines tell us where is found the code by which fugitives 
were arrested? or did the masters then as now, when a 
number is driven any considerable distance, hand-cuff them^ 
and drive them amid the music of chains, to the house of 
prayer and praise? And when they arrived at the holy city, 
were they lodged in jail for safe keeping? Did the San- 
hedeim appoint '-special service for them," and some one to 
impart "oral instruction'?'' Or, if permitted to go at large, 
were they skulking about the eves of the temple, or employed 
in watching the coaches and horses of their masters, whilst 
the masters worshipped within? And were there some men 
called patrollers, armed with cowhides and pistols, prowlinjj 
about on Sundays and nights, least the slaves should worship 
in ''unlawful assemblages,'" and later than eight or nine 
o'clock! Oh for honor to GoJ, and for consistency in man, 
let us not suppose that such horrid paraphernalia were 
mingled with the worship of the most high. We do not ask 
such questions, because our bosoms are destitute of love for 
those involved in the practice of slave-holding. No, with 
them are linked the tenderest ties of consanguinity, and the 
dearest associations. But we ask them because such things 
are always found in the land of slavery, and are inseparable 
from it, where it exists to any extent: and, with the example 
of holy writ before us, (1 Kings 18: 27,) for the purpose of 
showing the glaring inconsistency of error. 

We might also ask, what became of the sturdy hand-maids 
or bond-women, left at home whilst all the males above twelve 
vears, were gone, for two or three weeks, to Jerusalem. — 
Surely the tender daughters and mothers, did not stand as 
sentinels, day and night, to watch over those who were com- 
pelled to serve, in that land where "a very considerable de- 
p-ree of severity, in the treatment of servants, was indulged 
in during the Old Testament times." — (Dr. Junkin.) To 
talk of slavery, (which includes compulsory service,) under 
such laws and usages, as were established among the Jews, is 
but to utter contradictious. 

Next, we prove that the servitude amongst the lews, must 
have been voluniary, because they had a law positively for- 
bidding the return of a fugitive. •' Thou shalt not deliver 
unto his master the servant which is escaped from his mas- 
ter unto thee : He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in 
that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where 
it liketh iiiin the best: thou shalt not oppress him,'" — Duet, 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMV. 55 

23; 15, 16. This was a humane institution, and designed to 
prevent the servant from being oppressed, in body or mind. 
Nor will it avail anything if we, like some, attempt to escape 
this scripture, by saying it has reference to heathen servants, 
who shouid escape from their masters to the Jews. Reader, 
hear the words of one who has studied long and carefully the 
Word of God. " It is in vain to say this law refers only to 
fugitives from the Heathen. There is no such thing in the 
law, there is nothing in the connection to limit it thus, it stands 
disconnected to both sides, it is a positive statute and is there- 
fore to be stricdy interpreted. Its design was to prevent all 
cruelty and injustice. If a servant was abused he could at 
any time leave his master, and serve him right in doing it; 
and a servant who would be base enough to run away from a 
good master, would be no great loss, and the statute was in all 
respects a good one and could do no harm to no one. God 
grant that there may be such a statute in every State where 
Slavery exists, and for the present I ask no more." Professor 
Stowe, before the American Board of C. F. M., when at 
Brooklyn, new York. The text cited, shows that no man 
could be kept contrary to his will. If he was "oppressed in 
any wise," he could flee to a neighboring city, or tribe; and 
the law protected him from being delivered up. This is clear 
and decisive. 

Do you still insist that the statute had reference to Gentile 
servants? Then we answer, so far as the question of Shivery 
is concerned, your position does not affect tiie argument. For 
if Slavery was lawful to the Jew only, and not to the Gentile, 
then it is not lawful to jou ; for you are not a Jew, but a 
Gentile. But if lawful to you, or the Jew, it was lawful to 
the Gentile: and if lawful, then it would have been wrong to 
pass a law depriving the Gentile master of the right to 
recover his property. But the very fact that God enacted 
such a law, is proof positive that he did not regard as lawful, 
the right of property in man — that it is wrong for man to 
oppress his fellow man in any form; and if there are tliose 
who will do it, then there ought to be places, and institutions 
prepared for the shelter, and protection of the oppressed. — 
Barnes says: "Assuredly if Moses had supposed that the 
master had a right to the slave, he would never have publicly 
invited the slave to escape if he could. He never would have 
thrown around the runaway the protecting'shieldof his laws." 
He would never have proclaiuied in the face of all nations, 



56 SERVITUDK UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

that the moment when a man, who had fled from oppression, 
had reached the land overshadowed by Hebrew laws and cus- 
toms, that moment, he was a freeman; and all the powers of 
the State, would be exerted to secure him from being restored 
to his his master." Does any man who knows the fact, that 
Pennsylvania has passed a late law, forbidding the fugitive 
slave to be delivered up to his master; and punishing any of 
her officers who shall do so, — does any man with this act 
before him, suppose for a moment tliat the laws of Pennsyl- 
vania, even tolerate Slavery? And if the legislature of that 
State, should in addition to their late law, append the words 
of God in the cited statute, requiring the citizens of Pennsyl- 
vania, to "let the servant that is escaped from his master, 
dwell with thee, even among you in the place where he shall 
choose," and then add, '■'■thou shalt not oppress him:'"— does 
any man suppose, that that Legislature, would be guilty of 
such folly as to turn right round, and pass laws allowing the 
same citizens to enslave — to practice the worst form of oppres- 
sion? — require the citizens to shelter the Slave from Virginia, 
and then allow them to practice the same thing which they 
reprobated in others? As long as the former statute existed, 
and there was humanity enough in the citizens of the State 
to enforce it, it would be impossible for any one man, or set 
of men, to enslave — that is, to enforce inuoluntary servitude. 
And are we to suppose that equal folly was wrought by the 
Divine Legislator? or that Slavery could have existed under 
that law, when we remember that Israel was yet a Theocracy? 
— that God Almighty was yet the executioner of his own 
laws? As well talk of icebergs in the desert of Sahara; or 
of the drifted snow in the furnace of Nebucadnezzar. Slavery 
then, could not enter the Jewish Theocracy; and if it had 
entered, it could not have stayed there. That God did not 
intend to allow the right of property in man, or involuntary 
servitude, is clear from other statutes. The Jew was required 
to return that which was property of his fellow man. (Exod. 
23: 4.) If he saw the ox, or ass, even of his enemy., going 
astray, the law of the land made it the duty of the Jew, to 
return that property. But the fact that God forbade that the 
servant should be deUvered up, 'that was escaped from his 
master,' is evidence clear as a demonstration, that God did 
not recognise the right, of man's ownership of his fellow 
man; for if the servant was the lawful and righteous ;)ro;)er/i/ 
of his fellow man, whether the owner be Jew or Gentile, it 



SKRViTUDK UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 57 

would have been wrong to withhold, that which was lawful 
property. But no ! it never was lawful to enslave ; even 
if Slavery was an "organic sin," — sanctioned by long estab- 
lished laws and customs, — whether the servant had been 
oppressed by Jew or Gentile. God here made a law in direct, 
and immediate contravention of tlie wicked laws and customs 
of men. This passage strikes a death blow to Slavery, take 
it either way you will. It destroys the property tenure iu 
man; the very heart of Slavery. It destroys also involuntary 
servitude; the life's blood of Slavery: and man can no more 
exist without heart and blood, than Slavery can without prop- 
erty ownership in man, and involuntary servitude. The two 
essential elements of Slavery did not exist in the Jewish ser- 
vitude. Therefore that servitude was not Slavery. In the 
language of Dr. Beecher, "it wasn't Slavery, it is mockery to 
call it so." 

2. The next clement, which we notice in the nature of 
the Jewish servitude, is that each servant had security of 
person, secured to him by law. As an example, see Exod. 
21: 26, 27. "If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the 
eye of his maid, that it perish ; he shall let him go free for 
his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man servant's tooth, 
he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." The servant 
having voluntarily bound himself by law, to labor for a term 
of years — for six, or to the Jubilee, as the case might be; 
and the money iox that service, having been paid, as in Lev. 
25: 46-51, — ("He shall give again out of the money he was 
bought for.") — if the master should intlictupon him personal 
injury, then the servant went free from his obligation, and the 
master lost the money and service, as a punishment for his 
passion and cruelty. 'Moses frequently delivered general 
laws in the form of particular examples; and although here, 
only the eye, one of the most valuable organs^ and the tooth, 
one most easily dispensed with, are mentioned, yet it is clear 
that all other organs of intermediate value are included; and 
mutilation in every farm is forbidden on penalty of losing the 
services of his servant, though he might have paid a sum of 
money for his services to a stipulated time.' The master 
then, Avas punished for any maltreatment of the person of ihe 
servant. The above statute, together with the statute in Deut. 
23: 15, 16, released the servant from such a master, thereby 
punishing the master for such offence, and secured the servant 
against a second infliction of maltreatment. The person of 



58 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMV. 

the servant was as sacredly guarded as that of any other per- 
son of the nation; whether he was a Jew, or a Gentile; for 
he might be either. "Ye shall have no manner of law, as 
well lor the stranger, as for one of your own country." Lev. 
24: 22. " But the stranger that dwellelh with you shall be 
unto you as one born among you, and thou shall love him as 
thyself." Lev. 19: 34. "Cursed be he that perverteth the 
judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow: and all the 
people shall say. Amen." So sacredly guarded was the per- 
son of the servant, that the master was put to death as quick 
ibr the kihing of a servant, where there was evidence of 
Avilful murder, as for the kiUingof any freeman. See Exod. 
21: 12-20. Read these passages. 

Also, "Whosoever killeth any person, the murderer shall 
be put to death by the hand of witnesses * * *. More- 
over, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, 
he shall surely be put to death. So shall ye not pollute the 
land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the 
land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but 
by the blood of him that shed it. (Num. 35: 30-33.) 

Under this head of personal security we may notice the 
cruel perversions that have been given to the 20th, and 21st 
verses of the 21st chapter of Exodus. "And if a man smite 
his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; 
lie shall surely be punished" — i. e. with death, according to 
the above rule, (ver. 12th). "Notwithstanding," (or but,) "if 
he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished:" (i. e. 
with, or to the amount of death,) "for he is his money." — 
Some suppose that this passage teaches, that among the Jews, 
Slavery existed, — that man held his fellow man as property, 
disposed of at pleasure like other property; and because of 
this property claim, the master was not to be punished if he 
killed his slave. Now this passage means no such thing; 
and is a plain case, as every person may see. And, 

(1.) Every man knows, that in the sight of God, it is 
just as wrong to kill a slave as a freeman. "He that sheddeth 
man^s blood (whether slave or freeman) by man shall his 
blood be shed." "Thou shalt not kill." "He that killeth 
ANY man shall surely be put to death;" whether the object of 
rage be bond or free; is the command of God. Our civil 
law recognizes tlie act as criminal, as the slaying of a free- 
man ; and if enforced, would assuredly inflict the same 
penally. 



SERVTTTJDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 59 

(2.) The Jewish law, like ours, looked at the intention of 
an aot; judging- of it by circumstantial evidence. See Num. 
35: 20-23. Deut. 19: 11. There, if the manslayer used an 
"instrument of iron," or "a stone," or "a hand weapon of 
wood;" and "if he thrust him with hatred, that he die," he 
was adjudged a murderer; the circumstances proving an intent 
to kill. But in the present case, the master could not be 
regarded as a uulful murderer. He had not intent to kill; as 
appears first, from the fact that Uie servant did not die under 
fiis hand. Had he intended to kill him, he would have beat 
him to death at once. Secondly, the kind of instrument 
employed favored the same conclusion. Had he used "an 
instrument of iron," or "a stone," or "a hand weapon of 
wood," instead of a "roJ," (shebet — small stick. Isa. 28: 
27,) there would have been evidence of intent to kill. Thirdly, 
the servant "was his money;" — not literally pieces of silver; 
but the source of money: and for the services of whom he 
had paid money. It was considered improbable that a man 
would destroy his own sources of gain. Then the phrase 
"his money," is here used, not to teach that the master had a 
right to beat to death his slave, because he was his money, 
nor even a right to punish him with a "very considerable 
degree of cruelty," but as circumstantial evidence that the 
master had not intent to kill, and should not therefore be 
punished; that is, with death. 

Now, this will appear clear, if in the examination of the 
passages collated, we notice, 

(1.) The master was put to death for killing his servant, if 
there was evidence of intent to kill; as is clear from verse 20, 
of this same chapter. " If a man smite his servant or his 
maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely 
be punished, or avenged, (as the original Hebrew means ;) 
and the correction is found in the margin of your Bible. And 
why punished with death? Because the fact of the servant 
dying under his hand, shows intent to kill. The position is 
also made clear from Lev, 24: 17. "He that killcth any man 
shall surely be put to death." Also, he that smitelh a man 
so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Exod. 21: 12. 
This verse precedes those two verses under consideration, 
and is the basis on which the latter are built. It is the general 
principle laid down, of inflicting death for death. And least 
any might suppose, that the life of a servant was cheapened 
by the fact that he was a servant, God, blessed be His holy 



60 SEnVITVDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMi". 

name, sedulously guarded the servant's life against passion 
and danger; and in the 20th verse, declares again that the 
same general principle of death for death, shall be enforced; — 
there being evidence of intent to hill. 

But in the next verse he says, if the servant "continue a 
day or two," with other circumstances showing that the mas- 
ter had not intent to kill, then he shall not be punished, with 
death, according to the general rule previously laid down. 

(2.) He was punished for any cruel treatment of his servant. 
This is clear from verses 28 and 27, where the master was 
punis-hed with the loss of iiis servant, if he so much as knocked 
out his tooth, or maimed his body in any way. It is not true 
then, tliat "a very considerable degree of severity, might be 
practiced by masters under Old Testament times." The law 
did not so much as tolerate such a thing; (verses 20 and 2t,) 
but immediately took the servant from a maater who should 
inflict the least cruelty upon his servant, and pnnished him in 
so doing. Deut. 27: 19. Lev. 24: 22 prove also that he was 
punished. Then in the 21st verse, by the phrase he shall not 
be punished, it is manifest we are to understand, that he was 
not to be punished tvith death, according to the preceding rule, 
on account of the circumstances proviiig that he had no 
intent to kill: and not because his slave was his money. — 
Think you reader, that God would require the master to be 
punished for the small offence of knocking out a tooth, and 
then let the master of the same servant go unwhipped of jus- 
tice for manslaughter? — for luangling'to such a degree of 
cruelty as to cause death? Such a license would not be sur- 
passed in cruelty by the bloodiest days of Pagan Rome. — 
Such a perversion would make God a monster of cruelty, 
and His holy word a license for crime. Carry it out now, 
and any man whose services are bought for a time, or for 
life, whether he be black or whtte, may be beat even to death 
for any whim that may infest the breast of an irresponsible 
master.* We have dwelt on the above passage, because we 
know it is a stumbling block to many. Under this head we 
may notice another passage supposed by some to be a license 
for compulsory, and rigorous servitude. It is Lev. 25: 23. 
" Thou shalt not rule over him (i. e. a poor, afflicted Jew, 

* The servants in those days from the "nations around," differed not 
in color from tVieir masters, only that they were a little \\hiter; for the 
Jews had just come up out of Africa, into Asia. 



SKRVITUDr: rXDKR TIIK MOSAIC FCOXOMY. 01 

I'ediiccJ by some misfortune to poverty — verse 39, and had 
to sell himself for a sustenance for himself and family, — ver. 
41,) with rigor but shall fear thy God." Because it is said 
here that no one should rule over the poor Jew with rigor, it 
is inferred (1), that they might rule over the poor Heathen ser- 
vant with rigor; and (2), because the law was not to hold the 
poor Jew as a bondman, but that he should be to his brother 
Jew as a hireling or sojourner, it is inferred that {he bondman 
might be held as a slave — property, worked v/ithout consent. 
In reference to the first inference, it is like the Jews in the 
days of our Saviour, inferring that they miglit hate their 
enemies, because tlie law required them to love tlieir neigh- 
bors. Or, as though one should now infer, that he is justified 
in cursing his friend, because the Saviour said, "pray for them 
that despitefully use you." Because we are enjoined to bestow 
mercy upon one poor man, it does not follow that we may 
heap oppression upon another who is equally innocent. And 
the Jew knew it when he was commanded, "Thou shalt 
neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ve were strangers 
in Egypt." 

In reference to the second inference, drawn from the 40th 
verse, because the poor Jew was an adult, and not a minor 
that he might be bound; and because he, to get bread to eat lor 
him and his family, had sold himself, (for so the original word 
renimkar imports; and he had no crime but that of being 
poor, having fallen in decay, and might not be sold by the 
judges,) and because he is required not to be held subject to 
his master's house-hold as a bound servant is, but permitted to 
be with his family for their good, and thus be like a hireling 
or sojourner; and because he might receive daily waires as a 
hireling, forthe wants of his poor family, does it follow that 
one who is held in a different relation, must therefore be a 
slave; and, without any compensation for his toil? Let us try 
it. ]My neighbor is a blacksmith; he has a boy bound to him; 
he also wants a house built, or fence made. He hires a car- 
penter to come and work for him. Every night the carpenter 
returns home to his family, having received his daily wages, 
and with it provides for the necessities of his family The 
bound boy stays, — is subject to the rules of the family, — ia 
required to do all domestic labors, — learns a trade, — is educa- 
ted. At the end of the bond service receives a set of tools, 
horse, saddle and bridle; and being mounted, rides off free as 
the air that bore on its bosom the sweet tones of the Jubilee, 



62 SERVITTJDK UXDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 

Does it follow that because during his bond service, he sus- 
tained a different relation than tluit of the carpenter, that he 
was therefore a Slave? Every body says no ' ^ Nor does it 
follow, that because the bondman sustained a diflercnt relation 
than that of the poor Hebrew, that he was therefore a Slave; 
as we have, and shall yet further show. And if it be true 
that no Jew might be held in the relation of a bond-servant, 
still it does not follow that the relation of a bond-servant must 
therefore be that of a Slave. 

The passages first cited, show that personal security was 
secured to the servant: the objections raised do not militate 
against the truth, but harmonize with it. And thus every part 
of God's word maybe made to harmonise with his character, 
which is love. Think not tlien, dear reader, that the Bible is 
a throne from which we may receive power to enslave man; 
a forge where we may find chains to bind him; and a store- 
house where we may gather rods to beat him. 

No ! the God of the Bible loves his poor; and has evinced 
it in his holy word. And when his professed ministers come 
to you, with hands wreaking with blood, and Bibles labelled 
with oppression, hear them not. They are mistaken prophets: 
"crying peace, peace, when there is no peace." And whilst 
they would "sew pillows under the armholes" of some, they 
bind chains upon the hands ot others. 

3. A third element which we notice in the Jewish servitude, 
is that the bondman had secured to him by law, more than 
ONE-THIRD of Iils time for religious purposes. If they 
remained until the year of Jubilee, they had: 

(1.) Every seventh year; — seven out of fifty. Sec Lev. 
25: 3-6. 

(2d.) They had every seventh day; as most of ours get. 
(Exod. 20: 10.) 

(3d.) They had at the feast of the Passover, seven days. 
(Deut. 16: 3-11.) 

(4th.) They had at the feast of Weeks, seven days. Deut. 
16: 10, 11. 

(5th.) They had at the feast of the Tabernacles, eight days. 
Lev. 23: 34-39. All the males were required to appear at 
these feasts, in the place where the Lord should choose; 
which we know was Jerusalem, (Deut. 10: 16.) The going to 
and from these feasts, together with the time spent at them 
and in preparations, would consume for each feast, from two 
to three weeks. To this may be added the feast of Trumpets; 



SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY. 63 

of new moons, and the Atonement day. Now, if we add 
together the time as above shown, we shall find that the bond- 
man had .more than one-third of his time for religious purpo- 
ses; and consequently absttnance from toil for his master. — 
Some compute twenty-three years out of every tiftv. To 
the above may be added numerous local feasts; such as those 
of marriages, and of circumcision, of covenants; all showinor, 
that even as a bond service, it was the mildest ever regulated 
by law. Let there be a law passed, requiring our slaves to be 
held to the same kind of service as the Jewish bond servant, 
and Slavery will soon cease. Property tenure in man, and 
involuntary servitude, will not be known. None would be 
found going to the Bible for a system of Slavery. INIen, already, 
with our present heavy exaction of labor, without allowing 
the slave a week to celebrate the glory of God, or a month for 
education, are beginning to see that slavery is without profit. 
Those of the remaining Canaanites, on whom Solomon is said 
to have "levied a tribute of bond service," (1 Kings 9: 21,) 
who were national servants, had still more of their time — 
two-thirds. "A month they were in Lebanon, and two 
months at home." I Kings, 5: 14. And even this exaction 
was without sanction or authority from God. 

4. Another right secured to the servant, was the right to 
acquire and disburse property. Facts will show that this 
right was protecled by law; and not a mere gratuity of the 
master, as with our Slaves. The case of the servant recorded 
in Lev. 25: 47, is in point. Here we are told that the servant 
sold himself, and in verse 51st, we are told he might, accord- 
ing to the statute of the land, redeem himself "ought of the 
money that he was bought for." This money lie must have 
owned, and that under protection of law, or he could not 
legally have redeemed himself. And remember, this money 
was not earned by the consent or permission of the master; 
nor was he redeemed only with the consent of the master; — 
the law provided, that so soon as the servant could transfer 
to the master an equivalent, he should go free from obligation 
to farther service. Ziba, the servani oY Mcsshibosheth, gave 
to David when he was fleeing, asses, a great quantity of head, 
and fruit for his army. The same Ziba had twenty servants} 
and with these tilled the land of Mcsshibosheth. (2 Sam. 9; 
9-12.) Elisha seems to have expected Gehazi to have ex- 
pended what he received from Naanian, as his own; — for 
"olive-yards, vineyards, sheep, oxen, manservants, and maid' 



Gi SKKVITUDE rXDER THE MOSAIC KCONOMV. 

servants." (2 Kings 5: 23-26.) The case of the servant 
as recorded in IMath. 18: 23-36, has been employed by some, 
to prove the existence of Slavery. But this is the plainest 
case possible, to show that the servant was not a Slave, but a 
freeholder. The servant says to his master or employer, 
"have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." How 
could the servant do so unless he was a freeman, that he 
might accumulate means with which to pay the debt? Again, 
the fact of his suing those who were debtors to him, is evi- 
dence that both were recognised as freemen, having rights of 
property secured to them by law: — otherwise they might not 
sue, and be sued. But he, and bis fellow servants, wore recog- 
nised in law as property holders. 

5. They had a right to religious instruction. This was 
secured to them by law. This was the business of the "Le- 
vites who went about through all the cities of Ju(1ah, and 
taught the people." 2 Chron. 17: 9. Sec also. Dent. 31: 
10-12. Josephus says the servants were included with the 
rest of the people. See Ant. B 4, ch. 8, s. 12. Is this 
secured by law to our servants? — Or is there in some of our 
States, laws forbidding that the Slaves shall be taught to read 
even the word of God, under heavy penalties ! and in all 
Slave States a custom, forbidding their instruction. We make 
them to have "eyes and see not:" — aye, ears and hear not, 
even on Sabbath, when too often their services are demanded 
at home, either to cook, or to take care of the stock. 

6. The Jewish servants were members of the families 
Avhere they lived; and partook with them in all their festival 
occasions. See Exod. 12: 43, 44, Deut. 12: 12, 18— As 
David who was servant to Saul; sec 1 Saml. 10: 21, 23 com- 
pared with 22: 8. Great trusts of honor, or business, was 
often entrusted to their hands; as in the case of Abraham's 
servant, who was sent to select a wife for Isaac. In a word, 
they were members of the family, living in the same house, 
partaking at the same table, and at the same feasts, just as 
bound children now are. And this is the condition, or relation 
of servants now in Asiatic nations. _ 

Lastly, entire liberty was secured to them. * Whether 

*The object of the Jubilee was not, as I suppose, so much to release 
servants from obligation to service, as to revert lands to the original owners; 
;hus pieventing monopolies,\vhich are gererally injurious, and would then 
have proved oppressive. The Jubilee was also a great religious and national 
jc.'^livaj. and as such, all ought to observe it. Hence no cngagemeiat* were 



SltRVlTUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMT. 65 

tliis bond service ended at the end of six years, (they all being 
circumcised, and thereby adopted Jews,) or whether it ended 
at the year of Jubilee, certain it is, that at that time, all who 
were bound went free. Lev. 25: 10. " Ye shall proclaina 
liberty throughout all the land, and ye shall return every man 
to his possession, and every man to his family." In either 
case, the master only had a lease-hold tide to service for a 
limited period of time. Property tenure in man, one of the 
elements of Slavery, did not exist. 

In all these cases we see most clearly that the servant or 
bondman was regarded as having natural rights; and these rights 
were equally guarded and protected with those of the Jew, 
both by specific and general statutes; and we close this point, 
by noticing some of these general laws. "Ye shall have one 
manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your 
own country, Lev. 24: 12. "The stranger that dwelleth with 
you, shall be unto you as one born among you; and thou shalt 
love him as thyself," Lev. 19: 34. "Cursed be he that per- 
v'erteth the judgment of the stranger." " I will be a swift 
witness against those that turn aside the stranger from his 
rights." Mai. 3: 5. 

Now, many of the bond servants were of those strangers: 
— "That do sojourn among your ' * * ' which they begat 
in your land." l(Lev. 25: 45.) Yet for these, as for the Jew, 
there was one law. Now if the Jew had a right to liberty, 
a right to personal security, a right to compensation for his 
labor, then the bond-servant from among the Heathen had, 
and the Jew dare not deprive him of these rights by enslaving 
him, without incurring the swift judgments of that God, who 
was then head of the Theocracy, and who had said, "He that 
stealeth a man, or if he he found in his hands, he shall surely 
be put to death." "Woe unto him that taketh his neighbor's 
service without wages, and giveth him not for his work."— 
'Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: — if 
thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I 
will surely hear their cry. And my wrath shall wax hot, and 
I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be wid- 
ows, and your children shall be fatherless.' The rights of 
the servant then, were protected by awful penalties for their 

made longer than to the Jubilee, that all might be iree\ and then begin the 
world, as it were, anew. There Avas no oppression from wlaich the ser- 
vimt needed to be released. 
I 



66 SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMr. 

violation. Let such laws be now established as the civil law 
of the land, and Slavery would be like prowling beasts before 
the morning sun, hastening to caves of darkness and gloom. 
Now,'if systems, entirely dissiratlar in every element, should be 
represented by different words, then the term Slavery should 
never be used to denote the servitude under the Mosaic 
Economy. 

Moreover, m all this system we see nothing of that philos- 
ophy, which represents God as winking at sin, — pandering 
to despotism, — mingling righteousness with unrighteousness, 
— compromising with ignorance and error. — Nothing of that 
modern expediency, that whilst it admits the truth that God 
mowed down men by thousands rather than tolerate Idolatry 
and adultery: — overturned Empires and Nations rather than 
sanction these, and other "organic sins;" yet, when he comes 
to such sins as concubinage, arbitrary divorce,* and Slavery, 
represents the Almighty God as bowing his sceptre — lower- 
ing his standard of righteousness, and, with time-serving 
policy, accommodating it to the "organic sins" of lustful, hard 
hearted, and covetous men. — But we see a stepping at once 
upon the broad platform of righteousness, — securing at once 
to man, personal ownership, freedom of will, protection of 
person, of character, of property — the essential elements of 
natural liberty, individual happiness, and national prosperity. 

III. We promised to notice the design of this serviude, or 
bond-service. The institution was designed not only to secure 
the physical, but especially, the spiritval good of the Heathen. 
Scott in his comment upon Lev. 25: 44, says: "It was allowed 
in order that the Gentiles might in this way, become acquain- 
ted with the true religion." And in this institution, as Scott 
shows by marginal references, was one of the ways in which 
was seen a fulfihnent of the promise of God to Abraham,- 
that "in him ail the nations of the earth should be blessed.'* 
(Gen. 18: 18.) A living divine well expresses the truth in 
these words: "The reason of this bond-services was simply 
that untaught Pleathen brought among the Jews, might be 
kept steady until fully reclaimnd from their savage ways and 
worship. It was a ivise apprenticeship, to the business of 
knowing and serving God." The truth of the above posi- 
tion may be farther shown from the fact, that every servant 
was required to be circumcised. Gen. 17: 12. Exod. 12: 44,- 

* On the subjects of Arbiti-ary Divorce and Concubinage, under th* 
Mosaic Economy; see Appendix — letter B. 



SEKVITl'DE rXDIIU THE MOPAIC ECON'OMV. 67 

2' In becoming servants they became members of God's 
church. They might not stay in the family without doing so. 
Gen. 17: 14. 

3. They were required to appear before the Lord at Jeru- 
salem, three times a year. Exod. 23: 17. And they were 
each to appear there with a sacrifice. Deut. 16: 16, 17.—!^ 
Male and female were to observe joyfully these feasts. Deut. 
16: 11. This institution instead of being a selfish system, 
by which the aggrandizement of the Jew was secured at the 
expense of the Heathen, was a door by which the Heathen 
were brought into the church of the true God, and made 
acquainted with the only way of salvation. 

With this design before our minds, we can readily see the 
intention, and understand the import of that much perplexing, 
and much perverted passage, found in Leviticus 25: 44-46: 
*' Both thy bond-men and bond-maids which thou^ shall 
have, shall be of the Heathen round about you." "Ye shall 
always serve yourselves with them:" for thereby the poor 
Heathen will be brought into the church of the true God, as 
well as the Jew. In noticing the servitude established by 
Moses, we promised to notice in the 

IV. And last place, the persons to whom it was permitted. 
If it were even true, that God did permit the Jews to enslave 
the Heathen around them, that fact is no permit to us to en- 
slave. liCt the reader here notice, and remember, that pro- 
slavery men do not defend slavery upon the ground that it is 
a naturiil relation, or that it is right in itself, or that it is pro- 
ductive of national prosperity, but on the ground of permission. 
But what was permitted to the Jews is not in all cases, lawful 
to us. For instance, Saul was commissioned to go and destroy 
the-Amalekites, men, women, and children: 1 Sam. 15: 1-7; 
because they had sinned against God and his people. God 
who was Sovereign, and might destroy them with famine, 
pestilence or sword, commissioned Saul to do the work of his 
providence. Now, might the king of Egypt without com- 
mission from God, claim the right to slay the same people, 
or another nation of people who were innocent, who had done 
him no harm? Surely not. Let us apply the principle to 
ourselves. May we without commission from God the sov- 
ereign, go and enslave the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, 
the people said to be enslaved by the Jews through God's 
permission? No man claims this. Much less may we go 
and enslave a different, and unoffending people, — the poor 



©8 SERVITVDE rXDER THE MOSAIC ECOXOMV. 

Africans. Especially when we remember that the Canaan- 
ites were held not as Slaves, but simply to a bound service for 
a definite period of time, and the mildest the world has ever 
known. Let us illustrate this last thought. A permits B to 
take one of his children for a definite period of time, under 
laws that protect all its natural rights and allows it more than 
one-third of its time for religious and other purposes. Now, 
because of A's permission to B, may C, without any permis- 
sion, go and take the rest of A's children, hold them as prop- 
erty as long as they live? Is there a parent, — ay, is there a 
man in the nation, who would say this is right? If not, then 
my brethren, let us not use the "liberty of God for a cloak of 
maliciousness." Then the bond-service given to the Jews, is 
no license for our Slavery. 

This fourth point may be satisfactory to some minds, and 
may serve to loosen their grasp on Slavery: But v/e do not rely 
upon it, after what we have seen under the preceding points. 



CHAPTER Y. 

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVERY. 

In the Old Testament, the only remaining Scripture pleaded 
in defence of Slavery, is the fourth and tenth commandments. 
Here, because in the one, the master is required to see that 
his man-servant, or maid-servant does not break the Sabbath, 
and in the other, one neighbor is forbidden to covet the man- 
servant or maid-servant of another, it is therefore, inferred 
that God here recognizes the existence of Slavery, and pro- 
tects to the master, the right of property in the Slave, To 
this we reply: there is no evidence that these commands 
HAVE ANY ALLUSION TO Slaves. Because, 

1. The word servant in English, and "eicf/" in Hebrew, 
does not necessarily mean Slave, as we have abundantly 
shown. Nor is there anything in the connection here "that 
demands such a signification of the words, 

2. The Hebrews were just from the land of bondage them- 
selves, and now escaping for their lives through the wilderness^ 
and it is rather laughable to talk about their having Slaves. — " 
These commands were given them only a few days after 
^iieir exit from Egypt. 



THE TEN" COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVFTiV. CO 

3. The master's duty to restrain the servant from violathig 
the Sabbath, rested, not on the ground that the servant was 
his property, but upon the ground that the servant ivas a 
member of his hoicsehold; just as his wife and children were 
members of his household, but not Slaves. Therefore, it 
was the duty of the master to see that the servant did not 
violate the Sabbath. On the same ground it was the master's 
or householder's duty to see that the '^stranger ivifhin his 
gates'^ did not violate the Sabbath. Now if the master's duty 
to restrain the servant from violating the Sabbath, rested on 
the ground that the servant was his property, then the stranger 
that was lodging within his gates, and his children were slaves. 
But this would prove too much, and therefore, proves nothing. 
—No one will claim it. 

The above principle obtains in Lev. 22: 11. The servant 
of the Priest might eat of the holy things because he was a 
member of his family, and was necessarily circumcised, 
(see Exod. 12: 43, 44 and Gen. 17: 12, 13,) and not merely 
because he was bought with the master's money. If the 
latter was the reason why he might eat, then his dog, or ox, 
might eat, if money had been paid for them. 

But it is claimed that the tenth command recognises and 
protects Slavery; beccuse, as it is maintained, we can covet 
only that which is lield as property, by our neighbor. Let 
us test this position also. To covet is to desire without a 
willingness to give an equivalent; or "to desire unlawfully." 
My neighbor has a white boy bound to him for six, or eighteeii, 
years. The boy is very sprighUy. Cannot I covet that boy 
— desire him without a willingness to give an equivalent, 
though he be not the Slave — the property of my neighbor?-- 
The same would he true if the boy were only a hireling. Be- 
cause I may covet his wife, or his child, does it follow that they 
are his Slaves — his property? Every man, knows better. 
Then a man may covet that which is not held, as the property 
of his neighbor. 

2. This command would be necessary, though the servant 
of my neighbor was held as a Slave, and unlawfully held. 
To illustrate; my neighbor has a piece of stolen cloth; I may 
covet the cloth, and yet it would be as wrong for me to covet 
the cloth, as though he lawfully, or rightfully owned the cloth. 
Covetousness is wrong in me, (1) because of its influence 
upon my own heart. And (2) because of the effects it may 
jvroduce upon society; — the outrages it may lead to. Hence 



70 TUV. TT.S COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVERV. 

it is wrong to covet, even that wliich is wrongfully held. Then 
the command is necessary; and yet at the same time the ser- 
vant held may be unlawfully, or wrongfully held; and the 
command may be used without implying any right to enslave. 

liasUy, this command, and the eighth command are death 
to slavery. They strike at the very foundation of Slavery, 
and forbid the elements that compose it. " Thou shall not 
steal." "Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neigh- 
bor's." The term neighbor, as here used, means anyone of 
the human family. About this there can be no controveesy; 
because, 

(1.) The original Hebrew word "rca," denotes a fellow- 
being, one of the human family. 

(2.) The commandments or moral law regulate our duty, 
not merely to those near by us; but to all, and every one of 
the iiuman family. If we say the commands have reference 
only to those near us, then it will read thus: "Thou shalt not 
covet, or steal the property of one near by you, but you may 
of one far off." Now every man knows that it is just as 
wrong to covet the person, or property of one who is ten 
miles from us, as one who is tea steps from us. The Saviour 
uses the \Yord in the same sense when he says, "Love thy 
neighbor as thyself," Luke 10: 27. Matt. 22: 39. That is, 
you shall have the same regard for you neighbor'a rights, 
xyelfare, teniporal and spiritual, as you would have him have 
for yours. Matt. 7: 12. He showed the Jew that his neigh- 
bor was one of another nation, (Luke 10: 27-37) even the 
Samaritans — a people despised by the Jews. The word 
may be used in a secondary sense denoting one near by us, 
but as here used, and in many other places in the Bible, it 
means any one of the human family. Then the command of 
God is, "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not covet any 
thing that is the riijht of a fellow-being." Now either, or 
both of these commands, together with the whole moral law, 
recognise the fact that man has rights; for the protection of 
which the law was given. Remember, the law was not given 
to iiivest rights, but to protect rights already existing. — 
And the law recognizes these rights as belonging to man as 
man — to every individual man. Among the rights thus 
protected, are tlie rights to protection of person, protection of 
character, protection of property. These rights necessarily 
presuppose the right of personal ownership — the foundation 
of all other rights — that in which all others inhere. I cannot 



TlIK TEN COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVERY. '71 

acquire, or hold property unless I own myself. It may all 
belong to the man to whom I belong. So with the other rights 
here guarded. The moral law then recognizes the fact that 
man as man, has a right to himself — to his limbs, his 
mind, his body. A right to his lime, his labor — the proceeds 
of his labor, for this is the property guarded by the eighth 
command. Now the command forbids not only that we shall 
not take from man these rights, but that we shall not so much 
as covet them: "Thou shall not covet any thing that is thy 
neighbor's," Does he own his hands, his feet, his body? 
We can't speak of them without implying that he does. — 
The very word his, denotes that they belong to him, and not 
to us. Now we may not covet any thing that is our neigh- 
bor's. Then, the moral law not only forbids the beginning of 
Slavery in the heart, but every step in the practice. — Not only 
one element, but every element that composes it. And the 
man that enslaves his fellow man, violates the moral law; — 
the known and wilful violation of which, is eternal death, for 
"sin is the transgressor of the law," and "the wages of sin is 
death." * 

* We do not mean that the enslaver secretly purloins the property of 
the Slave; which is called theft, but, that under the form of law he forci- 
bly deprives him of his liberty — the free exercise of his mind and body 
for his own good, that of his family, and the Glory of God: rights which 
naturally and rightfully belong to every unoffending or law abiding mart. 
In this way the enslaver violates the moral law; as may be made per- 
fectly plain to every man. 

In the interpretation of all law, civil as well as moral, the law is under- 
stood to have a spirit, as well as a letter. By the spirit of a law we 
Understand the meaning, design or intention of the law, which may be 
much more extended than the letter. Hence the moral law, like the civil, 
forbids crimes by classes, and not every specific crime of that class. Irt 
doing so, it usually forbids the highest crime of that class: — always in- 
cluding every minor crime of the same class To illustrate: The sixth 
command forbids that we shall murder, or kill the body of our neighbor. 
In so doing, it ibrbids the greatest offence that can be offered to personal 
security; and thereby forbidding all other offences against the person of 
our neighbor or fellow-being. So with the eighth command. When it 
forbids us to steal, it forbids one of the greatest violences that can be 
offered to that which belongs to another; and in doing so, forbids us to 
take any thing, even to the smallest amount, that may rightfully belong 
to another. It then not only forbids us secretly to take away that which 
rightfully belongs to another, but it forbids all overreaching in trade, alf 
forms of robbery and oppression; whether by force of arms, or by sanC' 
fion of unrighteous law. And it is under this legalized form of robbery; 
the eighth command forbids Slavery. And the man that enslaves, i# 



72 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVERY^ 

"But," says one, "I did not enslave — deprive ray slave of 
his liberty, his rights. I found him already deprived of ihem 
by another man; and with Dr. Rice I am ready to admit, that 
the slaves were '■'unrighteoushj enslaved by others^ Debate, 
page 81. True, you may not have commenced the "unright- 

guihy of robbing his fellow man of his dearests right. Here let us.guard 
against misconstruction. We do not say that every man who rnay sus- 
tain the relation of a slaveholder is in heart a robber. We would distin- 
guish between the character of a man, and the system in which he may 
be involved. It sometimes occurs that a man's heart is better than his 
practice. Some fifty years since, many of our pious elders and deacons 
in the church, were engaged in beggaring and murdering families around 
them, by the sale of ardent spirits. They might not now do it with 
their present knowledge, without sin; though the practice be legalized. 
Dr. Rice says, '-Abraham, though a good man, lived in tlie sin of Concu- 
binage. -But let it be remembered that he lived in the twilight of Gospel 
day." Debate, page 1S.3. Still more to our point. — John Newton, raised 
up under the belief that the slave trade was a righteous institution, (for 
so Clarkson saj-s it was considered i:i his early day,) went to Africa \vith 
Bibles in one hand, and chains in the other. He went to preach the 
Gospel, and to kidnap. But when his mind was enlightened, and he was 
brought to see the sinfulness of the act — the slave trade — (which we 
as a nation now denounce as piracy,) he, like every other tiue penitent, put 
away the sin. A man then, may be honest in heart, but sinful in prac- 
tice; but when truth is brought to light, if a true child of God, he will 
embrace it, and put away the sin. I suppose there are many persons in 
our land, who, from the example and teaching of those to whom they 
look for instruction, have never yet been brought to see the sinfulness of 
the practice in which they are living: and when the truth is fairly pre- 
sented before their minds, will give up the sin. For truth they ought 
honestly and earnestly to seek, least God "permit strong delusion, that 
they might believe a lie, that they may be damned: who believed not the 
truth, but h.diA pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thes. 2: 10-12. But we 
must guard against error on the other hand. It does not follow, that be- 
cause some good meaning men do not see the practice to be sinful, that 
the church must admit the sin into her communion. Most protestants 
in our land, believe there are good meaning Roman Catholics. Yet they 
would not think it best for the cause of truth and righteousness to take 
the Catholic with his belief and practices into their communion. In 
order that the church may exhibit a proper and correct light, she always 
has exercisEd the right of txcluding wrong practices without impugning 
the motives of the heart. In this and every way, let the church proclaim 
the truth — spread it before the mind of every penitent, or seeker for 
admission. If he be a true penitent — an humble and sincere enqui- 
rer for truth, he will hear; and when he sees the truth, he will put 
away the sin. If he will not, then there is not " credible evidence 
of piety." There is fearful evidence that he wants to serve God 
aad Mammon, and has au unsubdued will. Let the church see to 



THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVERY, 7% 

«ous act" of enslaving, but you are continuing, prolonging, 
perpetuating the same act. And pray, dear reader, tell rhe 
the difference between beginning an unrighteous act — ^Slavery, 
and knowingly continuing the same act. You are prolonging 
the same act which is admitted to be sinful ; for, says John, 
■"AH unrighteousness is sin." (1 John, 5: 17.) 

The admitted point may be held tefore yo&r mind, by one 
or two illustrations, until it is engraven there so as not to be 
forgotten. AJy neighbor seizes you, binds you hand and foot 
with a rope, and dies, leaving the rope in my hands. I con- 
tinue to keep you bound by holding it. All the while the 
friends of human. ty are entreating me to desist from my 
"unrighteous act," and! very gravely say, 0! it was "unright- 
eous" and cruel in my neighbors to bind you as they did, but 
all that I am doing is just to hold on to the rope. Now how- 
would you look upon me, and how do you suppose God 
would.' To take another illustration, which in substance has 
been used. My neighbor seizes you, builds a prison, compels 
you to toil for him in the prison, locks the door, wills the key 
to nie, and dies. Now every man knows that I am guilty of 
the sin of Slavery — an "unrighteous act," if I do not open 
the door and let you out. 

The application of the above is easily made. Othera have 

bound the poor African, and you are holding on to him 

keeping him imprisoned. 

But says one, " my slaves were not kidnapped, they were 
born slaves." We answer : 

1. "God did not make them slaves in the womb." 

2. The civil law does not compel you to hold them as 
slaves, and if they are slaves you have made them slaves, 
and are now guilty of the acknowledged sin. 

Do you make another effort at Vindication and say the civil 
law makes the slave my property? We answer, the moral 
law, as we have seen, does not: the civil law cannot. The 
moral law as you remember, does not come to invest rights, 

it, that she does not sanctify by her e.xamplc, the unholy thing— that her 
"good be not evil spoken of." In this way she will diffiiie light, that 
the sin may be the more manifest. I know nothing that has dona so 
much to tolerate, and perpetuate the sin in our midst, as the practice of 
the church. She has permitted it to lay hold on the horns of her altars, 
that it may be shielded from a righteous indignation, that v.-ould have 
banished it long since. 

J 



74 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND SLAVERV. 

but to declare and protect rights already existing— rights inher- 
ent in man as man — rights natural to all men. And every 
human being has a right to claim protection under these laws. 
Now, the province of human law is the same: and may never 
contravene the moral law. To prove both these points: 

1. Civil law, like tlie moral law, is given, not to invest 
rights, but to protect rights in man already invested. Black- 
stone] says man has natural, or absolute rights; and the 
"primary object of Law," (i. e, civil law,) "is to maintain 
and regulate these absolute rights of individuals." Vol. I. p. 
89. And by these absolirte rights he says "we mean such as 
would belong to man in a state of nature and which every 
MAN is entided to enjoy whether in society or out of society." 
These natural rights he says are such as "life and liberty, 
and which no human legislature may abridge or destroy, 
unless the owner himself shall commit some act that amounts 
to a forfeiture." The object of law is to protect rights already 
invested. Our own laws are framed on the same basis or 
principle. In our Declaration of Independence, the political 
faith of the Nation, we declare "that all men are created equal, 
(i. e. so far as natural rights are concerned,) and have certain 
inalienable rights; among these are hk, liberty and ihe pur- 
suit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments 
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers froni 
the consent of the governed." Now, when human and civil 
governments, instead of protecting rights, attempt to take 
away those which they say "all men" possess — are inalien- 
able, and endowed by their Creator, they step out of their 
province, and attempt to subvert the very end for which they 
were intended; namely, the protection of rights. 

Again, when our government essays to enslave, and deprive 
its own subjects of their natural rights, it attempts a glaring 
absurdity, and its own crimination. It has already declared 
to the world, that governments derive their just powers from 
the CONSENT of the governed; and then without obtaining 
their consent, (and by consequence the jzisf, and necessary 
power,) essays to enslave three millions of its own subjects: 
as though my arm should attempt to enslave the body from 
which it derives its strength. Our gover'nment then upon its 
own admission, has no right to take away from its own sub- 
jects or body, those rights which it never invested, but which 
Vj '-an men arc inalienable," (if inalienable governments them- 
gjlvcs cannot alienate ihcm,) and which they were designed 



THF. TEN' COM^fANDMEXTS AXI) 9I.AVELV. 75 

onl^ to protect. Indeed it cannot; not having the just or 
necessary power "from the consent of the governed." 

And second, civil law or government may never contravene 
or oppose the moral law, or law of revelation. Blackston.c 
says, "upon the law of Nature and Revelation all human 
laws depend." * * * ' I'ISio human liws should be suf- 
fered to contradict these." "Nay, if any human laws should 
alloic, or enjoin us to commit a violation of the revealed law, 
we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must 
ofTend both natgral ai)d Revealed law." pp. 28-29, Vol. 1. 
The same truth vyas by inspiration uttered eighteen hundred 
years ago; "when Peter and the other Apostles answered and 
said, we ought to obey God rather than ???en." Human 
laws can never change what God has made right. " They 
cannot make black, white; right, wrong; nor wrong right." 
Then, if the moral law be against Slavery, no excuses will 
stand— it is sinful in itself, — For, all men, so far as the claims 
of their fellow men are concerned, own themselves— have a 
right to liberty. The moral law, as we have seen, forbids that 
W3 shall take, either by superior numbers, or semblance of 
law, or any otiier means, that which belongs to our fellow 
man — yea, even to cgvet it. — But Slavery takes from man — 
unoffending man, the riglit of personal ownership, the dearest 
of all rights. It is therefore, a violation of the moral law — 
sinful in itself. And now, dear reader, if the above is God's 
truth, place yourself upon it. Hide not your light, bury not 
your talent, be not a traitor to your God and your country, 
but speak with the assurance that Irutii is mighty and will 
prevail; for it is leagued with God. 



CHAPTER VI. 

ISiPORT OF VyORDS IX THE NEW TESTAMENT; AND TEACHING 
OF CHRIST. 

We come now to the New Testament argument. The 
texts relied upon, in defence of Slavery, in the New Testa- 
ment, are Matt. 18: 23-30. 1 Cor. 7: 21. Eph. 6: 5-9. 
Coll. 3: 22-25. 1 Timothy 6: 1,2. 1 Peter 2: 18. 'I'ilus 
2: 9. Philomon 1. 

As we have not space for all, we will copy only one or 
two of these texts as examples, and the reader is requested to 
turn and read the rest. "Art thou called being a .'servant ? 
rare not for it; but if thou raayest be made free, use it rather." 
1 Cor. 7: 21. "Servants, be obedient to them that are your 
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in 
singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye ser- 
vice as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the 
will of God from the heart: with good will doing service, as 
to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good 
thing any mnn doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, 
whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters do the same 
things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your 
master also is in Heaven; neither is there respect of persons 
with him."— Eph. 6: 5-9. 

Before we proceed to the direct argument we will drop a 
word on the import of the terms Servant and Master; and in 
the original Greek, the corresponding words doidos, kiirios 
and despofes. The apologists for Slavery are not willing to 
rest their positions upon the plain principles o^ justice and 
mercy as taught in the word of God, and by the sense of 
right planted every where in the bosom of man; but they 
seek to support oppression by giving to these terms a restricted 
meaning, and by an array of learning and apparent show of 
authoriiy. Facts will show that truth and freedom have 
nothing to fear from learning and a sound exegesis. — They 
will shine brighter by every test applied. 

It is claimed that the Greek word doulos, which in the 
New Testament is translated srrvant, "properly and comtnonly 



IMPORT OF WORDS iX THE NT.W TE3TA3IENT. 77 

means a person held to service for life — a Slave" — "the 
proper word for Slave." So Dr. Junkin, and Dr, Rice. 

Now it can be made plain, even to the common reader of 
English, that this is not true. Take, as an example, 1 Cor. 
9: 19. Paul says, "Though I be free from all men, yet have 
I made myself servant (edouJosa) unto all." Now was 
Paul the Slave of all men? Remember the definition of a 
Slave, And remember that a definilion must distinguish the 
thing defined from every thing elese, or it is not a definition. 
A Slave is one who is held as property without his consent, 
before and after he is of age. Mere "obligation to perform 
service for another," is not a definition of Slavery. I have 
promised to labor with, and for this people to whom I now 
minister; and having done so, I am under obligation to labor 
for them. Yet I am not the Slave — the property of any man. 
The service I perform is a willing service. So it was with. 
Paul. He was not the property of any man; but having; 
voluntarily given up the things of this world, he was perform-^ 
ing service, willingly for all men. Paul says in this same 
verse he is not a slave, but "free from all men;" yet he made 
himself a willing servant. 

Again, we are told in Phil. &: 7, that Christ "took upon 
himself the form of a servant" f'f/o/owj. Isa. 42: 1. "Behold 
my servant whom I uphold," &c. Now was Jesus Christ^^ 
our willing Saviour and Redeem.er, the ever living God, who 
"is before all things, and by whom all things consist" — was 
he a Slave? Let that Christian blush with shame who would: 
say so: yet Christ, like Paul, was a doulos,ci willing servant 
for the good of man. Kindred with the first passage cited, . 
is 2 Cor. 4: 5: " For we preach not ourselves, but Christ 
Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants (doidoiis) for 
Jesus sake." Now, were Paul, Timothy, and all the Saints 
in Achaia, Slaves to the Christians at Corinth — held as prop- 
erty without their consent? Such a use of the word servant 
as above, can deceive no man. Take the first two passages 
cited by Dr. Rice, in his debate with Rev. J. Blanchard, (p. 
3'84,) to prove that the "literal, and proper meaning of doulos 
is Slave." "Jesus answered them, verily, verily, I say unto 
you whosoever committeth sin is the servant (doulos,) of sin. 
And the servant (doulos) abideth not in the house ever, but 
the Son abideth ever." (John 8: 34, 3.5.) "In this passage," 
says he, "it is evident that the Saviour represents wicked men, 
as the Slaves of sin." Now. were these men the property 



l8 IMPORT OF WORDS I\ THE NEW TESTAMEN'T. 

of sill.' and did they render an unwilling service? Was the 
service without their consent? — Then they were not sinners^ 
Was it with their consent? — Then they were not Slaves; ftr 
willing service is not Slavery, And it is only quibbling, and 
using words in an improper sense, to say such service was 
Slavery. If doulos here means Slave, why did not the 
translators of the New Testament use the term Slave? 
Plainly because they saw that the service spoken of was not 
Slavery. Take the second passage cited by Dr. Rice: — 
Rom, 6: 17, 18. "But God be thanked that ye were the 
servants (douloi) of sin: but ye have obeyed from the heart 
that form of doctrine, which was delivered you. Being then 
made free from sin, ye became the servants (edoulothete) of 
righteousness." &;c. Now, according to the Doctor's teach- 
ing "that Slave is the proper and literal meaning of doulos,'* 
those persons were Slaves when they were servants to sin, 
end also Slaves when they were "made free, and became 
servants to righteousness." But those who translated the 
New Testament, did not so understand the word doulos; and 
accordingly transited it servant — one doing a willing service. 
And every man can see that the servants were neither the 
property of sin, nor of righteousness. Nor was the service 
they rendered an iimvilling service. It is mere trifling fcr 
men to talk about voluntary service being Slavery. Now, the 
'jVord doulos is used twenty-eight times in the New Testament, 
fo denote this voluntary service of man to his God. See 
preen field. 

Take one more example: — the words of pious old Simeon, 
when for the first time he saw the Saviour. They are these: 
"Now Lord (despota) leltest thou thy servant (doulon) depart 
in peace: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation." Now give 
it the pro-slavery reading, and make despota mean slaveholder, 
and you have these words: "Now slaveholder lettest thou thy 
slave depart in peace." You see what horrid havoc such 
definitions would make of the Bible. Dr. Rice, and we anti- 
slavery men, both admit that God is our Creator and preser- 
ver, yet we a:e free men — voluntary in our acts — we are not 
Slaves. He, though a servant of God, would not like to be 
called a Slave. According to the Dr.'s teaching, it is all a 
mistake about the white citizens of America being freemen; 
especially the Christians. They are all slaves; because they 
are called the servants of God. And the Angels in Heaven 
are slaves, for they who are represented as there praising God, 



IMPORT OF WOUDS IN TIIK MOW TESTAMENT. 79 

arc callecl servants — doulos. Rev. 19: 10. These absurdi- 
ties correct themselves; and when seen, can deceive no man. 
What then is the truth in reference to this word? This, as 
every man may plainly see. The Greek word doulos like 
ebed in Hebrew, and servant in English, denotes one ?rho 
does service for another, irrespective of the time for ivhich, 
or the principle upon lohich, that service may be rendered. 
It may be for a short time; it may be for a long time. It may 
be willingly; it may be unwillingly. It is a generic word 
denoting simply one who does service. The connection in 
ivhich it is used, must determine ivhat kind of service is 
perjormed — whether voluntary or involuntary— free or bond.* 
With other qualifying words, as ^'■douloi vpo zugon" it may 
mean Slave; but duloi etlone, does not iriean Slave. Thus, 
Dr. Potter in his Grecian Antiquities [page 73] says: "Slaves, 
as long as they were under the government of a master, were 
called oitekai; but after their freedom was grantei* to 
THEM, they ivere uouloi, not being like the former, a part 
of the master's estate, but only obliged to some grateful 
acknowledgments, and small services, such as were required 
of the metoikoi [resident foreigners,] to whom they were iii 
some few things inferior." The vvord doulos is not the defi- 
nite and proper word td denote a Slave. Andrapodoii is 
the definite Greek word to denote a Slave.t The word Slave 
is used but once in the New Testament, and then, not to 
translate doulos, but soma: Rev. 18: 13. And those who 
will see in prospective, the awful calamity of those who en- 
slave, may turn to that chapter, and read the suffering of hef, 
"the smoke of whose torment ascendeth up forever, and for- 
ever." 

We are also told "that the Helenistic writers, of Whoiri 
■were the apostles of Christ, did not make a distinction betweeii 
the Greek words Kurios, and despotes; and, that these words 
signify "a master, owner of Slaves" — "that when applied td 

* 'iHencfe the Greeks used the term doulos to express servitude in the 
inost general form, whatever might be the method by which the obliga- 
tion to service originated." So Barnes, and Passow, and G. W. Becker 
in Bibliothica sa era, vol. ii. p. 5G9. 

■f Barnes says the proper word to denote a Slave, with reference to the 
master's claim of property in him, and without regard to the relation'^ 
and offices in which he was employed was not dovh?. but andraiiodon' 
So Passow. 



80 IMPORT OF -WORDS I'm THE NEW TESTAIttENl. 

designate the relation betvv-een master and servant, signify a 
slaveholder." See Debate on Slavery, by Dr. Rice, and Rev. 
J. Blanchard; pp. 381 and 480. Now these words denote 
the opposite relation to donlos, and like that word, they are 
general in their import.* They may loith other qualifying 
ivords, be used to denote a slaveholder; or they may be used 
to denote simply a teacher, a ruler, as a term of respect, &c. 
They are not the defuiit's v/ords for slaveholder. If they be 
used to denote a slaveholder at all, the connection in which 
they are used, must fix their import. The definite term for 
slaveholder, is andrapodistesA Proof, that they are often used, 
not to denote slaveholder. "Then came Peter to Him, (the 
Saviour.) and said. Lord [''Kuric," — Master, Teacher,) how 
oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him." 
Matt. 18: 21. Now we all know that Peter did not use the 
word here, denoting that Christ, his Master or Teacher, was 
a slaveholder, and that he (Peter) was held as a Slave — as 
property, and that to an imwilling service. Robinson says 
''Kurios is applied to the Lord Jesus in reference to his abode 
on earth, as 2i Master and 7'e«c/ier,"— a director and instructor. 
The same word says Stuart "is used as a term of respect and 
civility:" as in Matt. 21: 30. The Son says to the Father, 
"Sir (Kuric) I go." In Matt. 25: 11, The virgins say to the 
bridegroom, who was surely not their slaveholder, "Lord, 
Lord, (Kuric, Kuric,) open unta us." The Greeks who 
came up to worship, said to Philip, "Sir (Kuric) we would 
see Jesus." Surely, they did not mean to say they were the 
Slaves of Philip. See John 11: 21. This same word, says 
Stuart, "is used to denote the head of a family or household." 
(Mark 13: 35.) Again, Luke 16: 3-8. There the steward is 
represented as saying within himself, "what shall I do, for 
my Lord (Kurios — Master) taketh away from me the Stew- 
ardship? I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed." Here it is 
plain Kurios does not mean a slaveholder, but only an em- 

* Robinson, than whom as a Lexicografjher, we have no beeter author- 
ity, says '-despotes naeans a rnaster." This is the first or primary meaning 
which he gives to it, and says it is used (a) as opposed to a servant, the 
head of a family, paler familias, and cites immediately, 1 Tim. 6: 1, 2: 
2 Tim. 2: 21; Titus 2; 9; 1 Peter 2: IS. 

(b) By impe, as denoting Lord, spoken of God, of Christ, of Kings, 
Imd Emperors." 

f So Barnes in his late work on Slaver}'', page 67. 



IMPORT OF WORDS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 81 

ploycr of a hireling or steward, who was under the direction 
of the employer, and the employer, is therefore called Lord 
or master. , He was a director, not a property holder of the 
steward. The same word is used to designate the husband 
of Sarah; 1 Peter 3: 6. He was head or director; and as such, 
she is said to have called him Kurios — Lord, — Master. Take 
as another example. Matt. 18: 26. "The servant therefore 
fell down and worsliii)ped, or be^oiight hiin, saying Lord 
( Kuric,— Master) have patience with liie, and I will pay thee 
all." Here the word denotes a king who was a creditor: — 
had hired one of his subjects, who is called a servant, — 
doulos. But Dr. Junkin says, "this cloulos must have been a 
Slave, and the master a slaveholder, 3r we cannot understand 
the transaction." The servant clearly was not a Slave, as 
may be seen, (1.) From the fact that he said to his lord, "have 
patience with me and / ivill pay thee all" — ten thousand 
talents. He must have been a free property holder, other- 
wise he would have had no means to pay, though his lord 
should wait with hiiii. (2.) This servant having "begged 
day," went away and cast his fellow servants into prison, 
until they should pay him what they owed him. The fact of 
his being a creditor, is evidence that he was himself a free 
property holder, that might sue and be sued. (3.) If he was 
a Slave, what would his lord or master make by selling his 
own property? Can a Slave become a debtor of ten thou- 
sand talents to his master? and if he does, can the master 
recover that debt, by selling him as the absolute property of 
another man? Every man must see the absurdity. Can 
my horse — my property, become a debtor to me? and if lie 
does, will I get my debt out of him by selling him to another 
man? The truth in the case can be very easily shown. The 
Saviour was a Jew, and speaking to Jews he would use Jewish 
customs to illustrate his truths, such as were familiar to them. 
The servant, as Barnes very properly suggests, was a collector 
of revenue. Grotius says, "all the king's subjects, and 
especially his ministers, were called his servants." SeeT. E. 
Thomas. It is certain the servant here spoken of, was a 
debtor; a thing which property cannot become. According 
to a custom among the Jaws, a creditor could seize a debtor, 
or his children, and sell them for a season, until the debt w'is 
paid. See 2 Kings 4: 1 ; Amos 8: (5. " Well," says Dr. 
Junkin, "if the servant was not a Slave before he was sold, 
he was after." Unfortunately for t!ic Dr., this refuge fails 



82 IMPORT OF WORDS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

also: for, first, he was not sold at all. His lord had compas- 
sion on him and forgave him the debt." And second, if he 
had been sold, the Dr. has admitted that he could be sold only 
for six years, that is, his service. See his paaiphlet on slavery, 
pp. 30, 31. If the servant sold had been made a Slave, the 
fact that the Saviour alluded to him, would be no evidence that 
the Saviour intended to sanction Slavery, but the opposite. 
The very object of the introduction of the parable was to 
show that men ought io forgive, and not be like the king 
or his steward. The truth is this : The servant spoken 
of, was a subject, acting as an officer, in the em-ploy of his 
king; and according to a custoin of those days, vs^as called 
a servant. Again, E-phesians 6: 9, "A-nd ye masters, do 
the same things unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing 
that your master (Kurios) also is in heaven; neither is there 
respect of persons with him." Now, if Kurios, — Master, 
in all these cases means slaveholder, then the definition, when 
put in the place of the word, will convey the same sense or 
idea as the word itselt"; if the definition be correct. If not 
correct, it will not. Let us try it. Notice the above reading, 
as it stands in the New Testament. Now adopt the one with 
the definition given by pro-slavery men; and it will be thus: 
"ye slaveholders do the same things unto them, (your slaves) 
forbearing threatening, knowing that your Slaveholder is in 
Heaven." What! dear reader, is it true that there are slave- 
holders in Heaven? — A being, or beings, who hold others as 
"chattels personal in the hands of their possessors" — held 
witiiout their consent? Can you believe this? Plainly then, 
Kurios, the word commonly translated master, as here used,- 
does not mean Slaveholder. Nor does doulos as here used, 
mean Slave. 

Then, when you meet with the term muster, in reading the 
Bible, you are not to understand that it always means a slave- 
holder. It is often used simply to denote a teacher; or a' 
householder: one having an oversight over others; as a guar-^ 
dian over appretifices or bound boys.* It is used to denote a 
ruler or King, having one or more of his subjects in his 
employ. It is also used simply as a term of respect and 
civility. At the time our present translation of the Scriptures 

* In New England and other frfte States, they use the term master 
now, to designate those who are guardians and teachers of bound bovs 
•«nd apprentices. Sec Life o! Norman i^inith, bv Dr. Ha\\es. 



IMPORT OF WORDS IX THE XEW TESTAMEXT. iS 

was made, the word was used witli ihis general signification, 
and as the popular way to translate Kurios, despofes, and 
other words; and would have continued to be used in this 
general sense, was it not that Slavery has degraded it.* 

TEACHING OF CHRIST. 

We come now to the direct argument. And 1, It is claimed 
that Christ recognized the relation of master and slave: referred 
to it in illustration of his doctrines, and did not forbid it. 

In answer we reply: Thereis no evidence that the Saviour 
ever met a case of Slavery. (1.) There is no evidence the 
servants alluded to by Christ, were Slaves, and not servants 
only. The Saviour was a Jew. — He labored only with Jews; 
with whom we have already shown Slavery did not exist; 
and especially is this true, (as is generally believed,) that they 
held no Slaves after the Babylonian captivity. The case in 
Matt. 18: 25, we hare already noticed, and shown that the 
servant there alluded to was not a Slave. In reference to the 
case of the Centurion, Matt. §: 6, there is first, no positive 
evidence that his servant was a Slave. The word used by 
the Centurion, as it stands in the original, is pais; — a word 
usually translated boy; and as Barnes correctly says, "was 
rarely applied to a Slave." iVlany writers believe this boy- 
was his own child — "He was dear unto him," Luke 7: 2, 
The term used in verse 9, designating other servants, or ser- 
vant under him, is doulo; a term so general in its import that 
nothing as to the nature of the servitude can be determined 
from the mere use of that word, as we have shown. Do you 
say it is probable that the servant was a Slave? We answer, 
the argument is worth nothing unless you can show positiveJy 
that the servant was a Slave.'^ The Centurion was a soldier 
having officers under him, down in Capernaum. And again, 
if the servant was a Slave, we have no evidence that the Centu- 
rion continued to hold Slaves, after his interview with the Sa- 
viour. Though Judea was then under the Roman Government, 

* That the servant was not a Slave, will appear from these considera- 
tions: "Though the Centurion would probably have a servant withhitn, 
as is the custom now in the East,'' yet "these are not commonly Slavei. 
They are persons in the employ oi" the Government, assigning such per- 
sons to the use of the army, to be paid by the Government. Again; 
considering the facilities for escaping in passing through foreign countries, 
on a march, it is hardly probable that the attendants on Roman olficera, 
vould he Slaves." — Barnes^ 



84 TEACHIXG OF CHRIST. 

it was the policy of Rome to let each nation'enjo}' lt3 peculiar 
form of Government, and the Jews maintaining their volun- 
tary bond-service, as we have shown, in accordance with it, 
the Saviour says, "The servant abideth not in the house for- 
ever: but the Son abideth ever." John 8: 35. The servant 
went out at the end of six years, or at the Jubilee, according 
as he had bound himself to serve. If the servant had been 
a slave he would have abided as long as the son: yea. longer 
— as long as he and his faaily existed. But the very fact 
that the service was temporary, shows that it was not slavery. 
The case is clear, forcible and pertinent. So the other para- 
bles used by the Saviour, in which sein-nnts are alluded to, 
show that the service was not that of Slavery. In the para- 
ble of the Prodigal Son, we are told that the servants were 
"hired servants." In the parable of the vineyard the master 
went out and 'hired servants at every hour in the day'; and 
paid them for it. The case of the unjust steward we have 
shown was not that of Slavery. Where servants of Kings 
are alluded to, as in the marriage feast, there is no evidence 
that they were slaves; whilst on the other hand we know that 
it was customary to call officers of the Government, assisting 
the King, servants. There is not a single case that will 
prove, that Christ met with a slaveholder. 

(2.) Were it certain that the servants alluded to by Christ, 
■were slaves, still, the fact that he alluded to them, in illustra- 
tion of spiritual or moral truths, is no more evidence that he 
recoo'nized Slavery as right, than the fact that he alluded to 
the unjust steward, (Luke IG: 18,) is evidence that he recog- 
nized DECEPTION, AND DISHONESTY, AS RIGHT. Read the tCXt 

referred to. 

(3.) The mere fact that we have no record of Christ call- 
ing Slavery by its specific name, and forbidding it as sin, is 
no more evidence that he considered it lawful, than the fact 
that we have no record of his specifically speaking against 
gambling, piracy, counterfeiting, persecutions, &c., is evidence 
that he considered these as lawful and right. On the same 
ground we may inier that Christ approved the horrid massacre 
of infants by Herod; because we have no record of his spe- 
cific denunciation of the act. We know not hov/ much 
Christ and his Aposdes preached against specific sins. We 
have but a very small part of their preaching and teaching 
recorded. John, using the language of hyperbole, says : — 
'.'The woild itself could not contain the books, if all that he 



TEvcHiXG OF eiinisT. 85 

done, was written." Jolin, 21: 25. The New Testament 
is not a volume of the sermons and discourses of Christ and 
his Apostles against specific sins; but chiefly, an outline of 
their history; and tlie geueri\\ principles Uiught by them. 

But Christ did oppose Slavery in the most effective manner, 
by laying down general precepts which forbid Slavery, and 
every other form of oppression. This is the Bible method 
of opposing most sins. Had its author framed a specific 
description of, and denunciation for eveiy specific sin, or form 
of wrong, the Bible would have been so large that no man 
would have been able to read it, in order to kno\Nf what is 
wrong. And second, specific statute may often be avoided; 
but general precepts or principles, never. Hence tlie Saviour 
comes, not only as he said, to fulfil the moral knv, which as 
we have seen, forbids Slavery, but that no social wrong may 
escape; and that all men may have a plain and intelligible rule, 
he says, "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Luke 
10: 27. And "Whatsoever ye would others sliould do to you, 
do ye even so unto them." Malt. 7: 12. Now, no man can 
be a willing slaveholder, (as distinguished from a guarilian of 
redeemer,) without violating these plain precepts. And we 
need no other argument, with which to oppose Slavery, or 
any other form of oppreasion. 

All this talk about loving our neigrhbor as ourselves, by buy- 
ing a slave and holding him in a better condition, but still as a 
slave, is a mere heartless subterfuge, "an inoperative con- 
science plaster," based still upon selfishness and oppression, 
as we shall show when we come to answer objections. If I 
am able to buy the slave, I am able to free him immediately; * 
and then be as rich, or richer than he will be, ^Yhen the 
early christians bought slaves, they bought them not for the 
purpose of showing their christian love by holding them 
still as Slaves, but for \he purpose of freeing them immedi-* 
ately. t We said Christ did forbid slavery, in the most 
effective manner, by proclaiming the precepts, " Love thy 
neighbor as thyself." and "Whatsover ye would others should 

* Or very soon, holding him only to a bond-servico, with a deed of eman- 
cipation recorded — guaa-antee in will, &c. 

+ Such persons are properly called redeemers, not slaveholders : see 
Nehemiah 5: 8. '-We after our ability have redeemed our brethren 
which were sold unto the Heathen." 



gg TEACHING OF CHRISTc 

do unto you, do ye even so unto thenj; for this is tlie law and 
the prophets." "This rule," says Dr. Rice, "requires us lo 
treat others, as we would reasonably expect and desire them 
to treat us, if rve itefe in their situation." As it was shown 
him, the question to be settled is, whether the golden rule 
allows the slave to be put in the condition of a slave. Con- 
cerning those first enslaved, he says they were ^'unrighteously 
enslaved by others;" and surely it cannot be riglu in any man 
to continue, or even tolerate an unrighteous thing. Then, 
(2.) Does the golden rule allow us to continue to enslave 
those already enslaved^ * Let us try it. Suppose the En- 
glish land upon our shores a superior force (for slavery is a 
system of force, and can exist only by force,) and take "us 
whiles" capatives — enslave us, and sell us to the French. — 
The French as a nation adopt the Christian religion; the 
foundation principle of which is "Thou shall love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself." "Whatsoever ye would others should do 
unto you, do ye even so to them." Now, would we reason- 
ably "expcct,'and desire" them to give us our liberty? We 
had done no harm; our forefathers had done no harm; as 
innocent beings we had been "unrighteously enslaved by 
others." — would we "reasonably expect and desire" them, as 
Christian men, to give us our liberty? Every man knovvs 
how he would decide, were it his own case. No man is 
willing to be held as a slave — have his body, his mind, his 
time, Tiis labor, his wife, his child, his religion — all that dis- 
tinguishes him as a man, usurped and conlrolleU by another: 
and if slavery is right, then to enslave man as man, is right, 
irrespective of color. But, says one, if men's desires are to 
be the standard by which this rule is to be interpreted, then, 
any poor man may demand of me a part of my farm, on the 
ground that if I were in his place I would wish him to give 

* A minister of the Gospel, living in Alabama, writing to the Editor 
of the New York Evangelist, says : "The influences of religion are gain- 
ing ground, and as the)' gain ground masters treat their servants better in 
dress, and grant them more Christian privileges. And this is not all : 
owners begin to feel that Slavery is a sin. A few wicked men, (slave- 
holders,) have said to me at diflerent times, that they did not see what 
business Christians had to come here and buy plantations and negroes, 
intimating that there is, in their estimation, a glaring inconsistency 
between Religion and Slavery. They justify themselves in Slavery, 
because they do not profess to obey the Bible. They say a man cannot 
do to others as he uvidd thai they shoidd do t9 him, and hold slm'cs^'' 



TEACHING Or CHRIST. S7 

to me. To this I reply, he has no right to desire his own 
aggrandizement at the expense of anothers lawful gains. — 
This would be violating another command which forbids us 
to covet any thing that belongs to another. The meaning of 
the rule is, "[All lawful things whatsoever ye would others 
should do to you do ye even so to them." Now, to desire 
liberty is lawful ; for liberty is the natural state of every 
rrtari: — as Westly said, "the birth right of every man." — 
And to desire another man to give him his liberty, is not 
coveting that which belongs to another, but that which by 
nature belongs to himself; for as an innocent man, he has 
done nothing by which to forfeit it. " No man then can wil- 
fully enslave his fellow man without violaating this plain 
precept of Christ: and "sin is the transgression of the law." 
Then we need go no farther to know whether the New 
Testa "nent forbids slavery. And whatever isolated passages 
we may hereafter find, that may seem to tolerate slavery, we 
may be sure that such apparent toleration, arises from our 
ignorance of the design of the writer, or of the truth concern- 
ing these passages: for it cannot be that the specific precepts 
of Christianity, will violate its fonndation principle. This 
would be an inconsistency reproachful to man, much more so 
to God. 

Further, this precept requires not only that the slcveholder 
shall let the op|)ressed go free, but that the non-slaveho der, 
whether he be Nortli or South, shall also plead and lab-'r for 
the rights and welfare of his fellow man — both slave and 
master. If we vvere involved in the darkness and and difficul- 
ties that many masters really are, and if we were bowed' 
down under the yoke of bondage, as is the poor slave, we 
would wish, yea, "reasonably expect and desire," those who 
knew the truth — (Irave the right and means,) to speak, to plead 
and labor for our deliverance. Then every man and woman, 
vyhether slaveholder, or non-slaveholder, whether East or 
West, North or South, in Europe or America — every soul in 
Christendom, has someihing to do with slavery. Patriotism" 
has no territory for neutrals to stand on. Humanity will own 
no one who has not a soul to feel for another's woes. Christi- 
anity will reject the man who disregards the rights of man, 
and denies his Savior in the person of his fellow — "the least 
of one of these my brethren." For, at the day of final 
retribution the Savior will say: "I was an hungered, and yo. 
gave me no meat: I was thirsty and yc gave mc no drink: f 



88 TEACHING or CHRIST. 

was a stranger and ye took me not in: naked and ye clothed 
me ndl: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then 
shall they also answer hini, saying, Lord when saw we thee 
an hungered, or a athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or 
in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he 
answer them, saying, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the 
least of these, ye did it not to rne. And these shall go away 
into evelasling punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." 
Oh! fellow man ihou hast something to do with Slavery. — 
The first principles of right — of Christianity, require, not 
only that we shall not enslave, but that we shall labor for the 
oppressed, ds ive ivould, ivere the person of our Savior him* 
self enslaved. Remember this, and 

" If then thou hast truth to utter 

Speak it boldly, speak it all." Christ suffers. 

There are other teachings of Christ, which are directly 
against Slavery. In the outset of his preaching he said; 
*' The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath annoin- 
ted me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to 
Ileal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, 
and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that 
are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the lord." Luke 
4: 18, 19. These words as Barnes suggests, were spoken by 
Isaiah, 61: 1, in reference to the delivery of the Jews from 
Babylonian oppression, and also as applicable to Christ at his 
coming. The Saviour assumes them as appropriate to him- 
self—that he had come to preach against all oppression; — 
and, alluding to the year of Jubilee, (which as we have seen, 
Avas the year of release to all) he Says, "to preach the accept- 
able year of the Lord." To evade the force of these truths, 
some say the words are to be understood only in a spiritual 
sense. We reply, it is manifest and acknowledged, that tliey 
are literal as vvell as figurative or spiritual. That he preached 
the Gospel to the poor wis literal, as well as figurative. That 
he opened the eyes of the blind, was literal as well as figura- 
tive. That he comforted the broken hearted by bringing to 
life their departed dead, was literal as well as figurative, and 
that he has really preached deliverance to the captives and 
set at liberty them that are bruised, is literal as well as figu- 
rative. It was the Gospel of Christ — ihe doctrine of equal 
love to our neighbor, — of doing to others as we would they 
should do to us, that prompted the early Christians to expend 
their estates, as we shall see, to buy slaves from Slavery. It 



TEACJIIXG OF CHRIST. 89 

was the Gospel of Christ that had almost entirely banished 
Slavery from the whole of the Roman Empire when it was 
overrun by the hordes of Northern Europe. It was the Gospel 
of Christ that moved the heart of the Mistress of the seas of 
the present day, and bid her proclaim liberty of body to 
eight Iiundred thousand in one day. It is the Gospel of 
Christ that has been feeling about the hearts and opening the 
hands of the American people ever since they have had an 
existence: — and now whilst as by an eye of faith it points t6 
a throne of eternal justice and final retribution, it is still saying 
to the trejnbting soul, "Break every yoke, and let the oppressed 
go free." "Remember those in bonds as bound with them." 
And of the millions that have been freed from the thraldom of 
literal slavery, it will be found that in ninety-nine cases out of 
a hundred, the prime moving cause of literal freedom was the 
Gospel of Christ, And blessed be God, the apologists for 
oppression themselves being judges, the Gospel will yet 
literally banish all Slavery. Thus the Princeton Repertory 
speakiilg of the principles of the Gospel says: "It is also 
evident, that acting in accordance with these principles would 
soon improve the condition of tlie Slaves, would make them 
intelligent, moral, and religious, and thus work out the benefit 
of all concerned and the removal of the institution. For 
Slavery, like despotism supposes the actual inferiority and 
consequent dependence of those held in subjection. Neither 
can be permanent. Both may be prolonged by keeping the 
subject classes degraded, that is, by committing sin on a large 
scale, which is only to treasure up \7rath for the day of wrath. 
It IS only the antagonist fanaticism of the South which main- 
tains the doctrine that Slavery is in itself a good thing, and 
ought to be perpetuated. It cannot possibly be perpetuated." 
So, Dr. Fuller: "In process of time Christianity seconded 
the humane workings of this system," (that is a system for 
the protection of the Slaves: — done in the second century, and 
doubtless prompted in the Jirst place by Christianity) "and 
infused its mild and benevolent spirit into the institution (that 
is of slavery as I infer from his book) making it quite a dif- 
Jerent thing.'" — As when you put an alkali into an acid, it 
makes it quite a different thing: — That is, it destroys it. Says 
Dr. Junkin: "Manumission was often practiced in the Roman 
and Grecian world. Paul advises the servant, if the master 
offer to manumit him to accept his freedom with gratitude, — 
Use it rather." 1 Cor. 7: 2\. TVhen Grace touched the mas- 
L 



§0 TEACHING OF CHRISf. 

ter's heart, and especially if his conversion, as doubtless tvaS 
often the case, was brought about by the patient and quiet 
obedience and manifest improvement of his converted slayeSj 
it cannot be doubted, he often freed his servants. "-JVlien 
the Grace of God:'' — yes, when the spirit of God pressed the 
soul with the obligations of the Gospel and filled the heart 
Svith the true foundation principles or precepts of the Gospel, 
love to God and love to man, (Math. 22: 37-40) -'then the 
master freed his servants." Would to God this Gospel was 
more generally preached. And O that ministers and people 
would declare the tvhole Gospel and not keep back a part of 
the price — precious price ! paid by Heaven and sealed by the 
blood of Jesus. Then would come to pass the precept and 
saying of Christ: Be not ye called Rabbi (master): for one 
is yo°ur Master even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 
Such a Gospel was and will continue to be opposed to all 
Slavery. And Christ did oppose Slavery. 



^ '^ CHAPTER VH. 

duties of servants and masters considered. 

In the preceding chapter, we were engaged in showing thai 
slavery, built as it is upon the principle that one innocent mart 
may be compelled to be the property of another — his powers 
of body and of mind — his means of happiness consumed for 
the interest, and controlled for the benefit of the master, is 
directly opposed, and forbidden by the principles of that Gos- 
pel, which requires us to "love our neiglibor as ourselves," 
and "whatsoever ye would that others should do unto yo.i, da 
ye even so unto them." Now let it be remembered, that 
this position is admitted by almost all. The critic, the theo- 
logian, the mechanic, the scholar, the moralist, the statesman, 
~alm()st all, with one consent, admit that Slavery is wrong, 
and as such the priciples of the Gospel are opposed to it. 
Dr. Junkin says, "we are opposed to Slavery, and are doing 
as much in our respective positions to abate its evils as our 
brethren are." Pamp. p. 12. Dr. Rice says, the first enslave- 
ment of man was an unrighteous thing: "what is our duty to 
H class unrighteously enslaved by others?" Debate pa. 81. 



DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED, 91 

"Far from defending the African slave-trade, we abhor and 
denounce it as piracy. We, therefore, maintain, that Ameri' 
can slavery oughtnevcr to have existed/^ Debate, page 26, 
Dr. Fuller in his letters to Pres. Wayland says: "You must 
already have perceived, that, speaking abstractly of Slavery, 
I do not consider its perpetuation proper, even if it tvere 
possible.^^ Pa. 157. Princeton Repertory says: "The con- 
sequence of acting on the principles of the Gospel, of follow- 
ing the example and obeying the precepts of Christ, would 
be the gradual elevation of the slaves, in intelligence, virtue 
and wealth; the peaceable and speedy extinction of slavery. ^^ 
Vol. viii. p. 304. Stuart says, "Paul himself gave precepts 
in abundance, which, if obeyed, would bring all Slavery ere 
long to an end." Says Scott, in his Comment: "The prin- 
ciples of both the law and the Gospel, when carried out, 
infallibly abolish Slavery." 

Says Barnes, "No candid reader of the New Testament, 
it is believed, can doubt that liie principles of Christianity are 
opposed to the existence of Slavery." Says Clark, " In 
Heathen countries Slavery was in some sort excusable; but 
among Christians it is an enormity and a crime, for which 
perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment." 
Wayland, in his Moral Science, says, "The moral precepts 
of the Bible are diametrically opposed to Slavery." Said 
Jefi'erson, in view of Slavery: "I tremble for my country 
when I remember that God is just." Said Henry Clay, in 
a colonization speech in 1827, (referring to those who would 
suppress all agitation of the Slavery question,) " If they 
would suppress all tendencies towards liberty and ultimate 
emancipation, they must blow out the moral lights around 
us, and extinguish the greatest torch of all which America 
presents to a benighted world, pointing their way to their 
rights, their liberties, and their happiness. They must 
penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason 
and the love of liberty. Then, and not till then, when uni- 
versal darhiccs and despair prevail, can you perpetuate 
Slavery, and repress all sympathies, and all humane and 
benevolent efforts among freemen, in behalf of the unhappy 
portion of our race who are doomed to bondage." Here is 
one general consent that Slavery is wrong, and as such the 
principles of the Gospel are against it. Go throughout 
society, and in our every-day intercourse Milh men, the 
admission is the same. 



92 DrXIES OF SERVANTS A\D MASTERS CONSIDERED. 

Now, this is enough. For, if the principles of the Gos- 
pel are opposed to Slavery, then the practice of the Gospel 
mast be opposed to Slavery. Hence, when the Apostles go 
out into practical life, we are not to expect to find them giving 
any specific precepts, in violation of the plain principles of 
the Gospel they preach; — ihey teaching hy inspiration of 
Jesus. This brings us to notice the second argument for 
Slavery, as drawn from the New Testament. It is this: — 
"The reciprocal duties enjoined upon masters and servants, 
are such as recognize Slavery not to be sinful, but a lawful 
relation." 

DUTIES OF SERVANTS. 

Turn to the texts cited at the beginning of the New Testa- 
ment argument. Let us notice, first, the duties enjoined upon 
servants. They are these: patience, obedience, long-suffer- 
ing, fidelity, honesty, reverence. 

These duties were enjoined upon servants in general ; 
whether they were minors, persons bound for a season, or 
Slaves. To say they were addressed to slaves only, is to 
leave all other servants without any instruction. To say 
they were addressed to minors, and persons bound for a sea- 
son, is to leave slaves without any instructions. Also these 
duties are obligatory upon all persons under government, so 
long as they remain members of that government. But it 
was necessary that the Apostles should address them to ser- 
vants, because : 

1. There were judaizing teachers, who, looking as they did 
upon Gentiles as dogs and idolaters, taught that obedience to 
the government of such, was not the duty of any person, 
whether servants or not. And especially, that it was not the 
duty of Christians, having now become the servants of Christ. 
The Aposdes' instructions were necessary to correct this 
error. 

2. The duties enjoined were such as Christianity from its 
very nature must enjoin, though slavery be wrong. These 
virtues are Christian virtues, essential to the perjection of 
Christian character. The opposite vices, hatred to masters, 
dishonest)', fretfulness, insubordination and pride, would have 
been wrong in these Christian servants, even though their 
masters were wrong, and the aggressors. Further, servants 
were especially liable not to exercise these virtues. They 
were generally ignorant, and as such, were liable to be gov- 



DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS C OXSIDERED. 93 

emed by passion, and not by reason or principle. They 
were generally poor; hence, temptations to uutaitkfulaess 
great. They were underthe command of others, who., having 
a little authority, are very apt to abuse it, be mandatory, 
whimsical, and tyrannical. Even if they are not, servants 
not seeing as they do, are liable under tliese circumstances, to 
hate their masters, be fretful and insubordinate. This would 
be wrong. Thsir very condition in life, then, made these 
injunctions ot the Apostle necessary, though the power exer- 
cised over them may have been wrong. 

Again, individual retaliation and insubordination are wrong, 
because of their effect upon the individual and societ}'. In 
the very attempt to get what he supposed to be right, he 
would lose it in the midst of anarchy and bloodshed. Hence, 
so long as an individual remains a member of that society, 
he must leave the adjudication of his wrongs to society. 
Also, by this course, God would be glorified, and the Gospel 
of his son Jesus honored. Hence, under all these circum- 
stances, it was the duty of the servant to exercise those virtues 
essential to his own spiritual welfare, the peace of society, 
and glory of God, though he might be unlawfully oppressed 
by his master. He must do thai which is right — exercise 
Christian virtues and acts, though his master is doing wrong. 
This position is abundanth illustrated in the Scriptures. In 
Matt. 5: 44, we are taught that though "our enemy hate us, 
despitefidhj use us, and persecute us, yet we are to love him, 
do good unto him, and pray for him." The injunction to 
this obedience and the exercise on our part of those Christian 
virtues, does not for a moment justify the course of our 
enemy. Again: we have specific teaching concerning this 
principle, in the case of a servant. In 1 Peter, 2: 19, 20, 
where the servant is commanded "from conscience tou'ord 
God," to be "obedient; and though he may do well, and suffer 
for it, yet he is to take it patiently, and endure grief, suffering 
wrongfully." He is not to be filled with hatred and thereby 
become in heart "a murderer," (1 John 3: 15,) but to exercise 
Christian feelings, and pray for those despitcfully using him. 
But does the injunction to the exercise of these Christian 
virtues, justify the course of the oppressor? for it is here 
declared that he ''suffers tvrong/ully.'" Certainly not. Take 
another example; Matt. 5: 39, "Whosoever shall smite thee 
on the right cheek, turn to him the other also:" that is, "Ye 
shall not resist evil." The Jews had arrogated to themselves 



94 DUTIES OF SERVAXTS AND MASTERS CON'SIDEREn. 

the prerogative of adjndicating, or avenging their own wrongs 
— taking eye for eye, and tooth for tooth — a privilege belong- 
ing to God, but delegated to judges, or society: — compare 
Deut. 19: 18, 21, with Lev. 24:' 16, 19. Individual retaliation 
or revenge was wrong; and injuries of the character specified, 
not involving life or conscience, were to be left to society to 
adjudicate. But does this injunction to obedience, and 
patience, justify the wrong smiting? Certainly not. Again, 
the Apostles enjoined upon Christians that under persecution 
they should be submissive, patient, and forgiving; "returning 
good for evil." But does this injunction to labor for the 
good of their enemies, and to be submissive, patient, and for- 
giving under injuries, prove that these fellow, free Christians, 
and the Apostles, were the property of their enemies, or 
especially that the Apostle intended thereby, to recognize 
the practice of the persecutors, as right? Assuredly not. 
This is clear and very much to the point. Then Christianity 
may enjoin upon us the exercise of the christian virtues, obedi- 
ence, patience, and long suffering, though individuals and 
governments may be oppressive and wrong — yea, sinful in 
their practice. 

Further, these injunctions are not without limitation. 

(1.) They do not require that we shall do immoralities, 
The obedience enjoined upon servants, is "in the Lord" — 
"doing service not unto men, but as unto the Lord." When 
Nebuchadnezzar said to the three Hebrew children, "bow 
down and worship the image," they felt that they must obey 
God, and not man. When the government said to Daniel, he 
must not pray to his God, he believed it was his duty not to 
obey; and prayed as formerly with "open windows." When 
the Sanhedrim said to the Apostles, that they must no more 
preach in the name of Jesus, they replied, "we should obey 
God rather than men." The principle taught is, that there 
are commands, both of individuals and governments, which it 
is not our duty to obey. Conscience, religious liberties, may 
never be invaded. 

(2.) The duties enjoined do not imply that a man is always 
to stay in a government thus oppressive. Otherwise, the 
children of Israel should never have lel't Egypt. Otherwise, 
our Pilgrim Fathers should have remained under oppression 
in old England, and never have come to Plymouth Rock. 
Otherwise, the early settlers of Kentucky, who were seized 
by the Indians — carried into bondage, and held there as 



DUTIES OF SERVANTS AXD MASTERS CONSIDERED. 95 

property, should never have left those who held them, but 
remained, in all cases, under an oppressive government. 
Every man sees clearly the force of these cases; and if it 
were his own case, he being thus oppressed, would know in 
a moment how to interpret these commands. Then, whilst 
the Scriptures lay down, as a general rule, that "ever}' man 
abide in the same calling wherin he is called," yet, Paul him- 
self makes an exception, and says to the servant, "if thou 
mayest be made free, use it rather :" or, all el kai dunusi 
eleutheros genesthai, mallon chresai; "but if thou art able to 
become free, use it rather." It is clear that a man is not to 
stay in all cases, in the same caUing or business in which he 
is called to be a Christian. John Newton did not consider 
that this injunction required him to continue to be a kidnap- 
per. A man may be called to be a Christian, being a dram- 
seller: Is he to remain in this calling? A man who is a farmer, 
or mechanic, may believe he can serve God better in tlie min- 
istry. Must he in literal obedience to this injunction, remain 
a farmer, or mechanic? A man, who is a merchant, believes 
he can serve God better by going to England, or India. Must 
he obey this injunction literally? — stay here -as a merchant, or 
go there as a missionary? Every man says, it is his duty to 
go where he can serve God the best. These commands then 
are never to be so construed as to prevent a man from peace- 
fully withdrawing to a place, or profession, where he can 
serve God better. No claims of man, or society, may con- 
travene those of God, or of conscience. And one command 
or duty, must not be made to destroy another. 

(3.) All this will appear still more clear when we remember 
that the duties required by the Apostle, are not urged on the 
ground of the master'' s clahn of property in the servant, 
but upon the ground of duty to God — "doing service as to 
the Lord, and not to men," — "for conscience toward God," — ^ 
"that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all 
things." 

"Servants be subject to yo;/r masters with all fear; not 
only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this 
is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure 
grief, suffering wronfully. For what glory is it, if when ye 
are buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it j)atiently? but if 
when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this 
is acceptable with God." Here the servant was admonished 
to bo subject to their master's with all fear. But tliis fear,- 



96 i;i niTs OF aKRVANTS and masteks coxsiderkd. 

as I3ro. Brisbane has properly suggested, was not of the mas- 
ter, but of God. In those things enjoined upon them to 
perform, they were to be watchful, and not do any immorality: 
— they were to be careful in all that they did, to do it with an 
eye to the Glory of God. They were not only to be thus 
watchful over their actions in laboring for good men, but 
especially they would need to be thus watchful how they per- 
formed the things required by the "froward" masters, who 
would often not regard religious duties; and as the servant 
was liable to be punished by such masters if they persisted 
in trying to do that, which woiild be pleasing to God. There 
would be a strong temptation to do whatever was commanded 
by froward masters, rather than be subject to punishment. 
This view is greatly strengthened by the fact, that it harmon- 
izes with the succeeding words: "When ye do well and suffer 
for it," (that is, chastised for doing your religious duties) "ye 
take it patiently, this is acceptable to God." Now for me to 
sit tamely by, and sulfer a band of robbers to take my prop- 
erty, or nial-treat my person — violate my natural rights, I do 
not suppose this could be said to be "acceptable to God." 
But if I am a member of a Government, formed for the 
purpose of protecting natural rights, and where my rights are 
generally protected, yet if that Government should require 
me to do an imnloralitj-', or an inipious thing, and I should be 
watchful over all my acts, and be careful not to do any thing 
which would be displeasing to God; or was diligent in doing 
those things which I supposed to be pleasing to God, and a 
"froward" master, or Christless Government sjiould chastise 
or punish me for so doing — for "doing well," ^nd J should 
take it patiently, this would be "acceptable to God." So it 
was with Daniel and the three Hebrew childreil; The dbove 
view is strengthened by the fact, that the Apostle in giving 
like instructidns to servants at Ephesus (Eph. 6: 59) said lii 
immediate connection: "And ye masters do the same things 
unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master 
also is in Heaven: neither is there respect of persons i^na 
HIM." Here the masters \Vere to do the same things, act 
"with fear and trembling in the instruction or management of 
their servants, least they do tilings displeasing to God — least 
ihey should be unjust in their exactions, or be tempted to 
hnpatience instead of "long suffering." Such instructions 
bf the Apostle of duty toward God, certainly does not in any 
H'ay, imply the right of property iu the servant, even if the 



DUTIES or SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. 07 

servants addressed were slaves. If, then, a servant, in the 
language of the Apostle, is able to become free, let him "use 
it rather." If not, let him be patient, peaceful, obedient, 
long suffering, even though he '■'■suffer wrongfu/ly.^^ And yet,, 
the injunction to the exercise of these Christian virtues, does 
not for a moment sanction the course of his oppressor or his 
enslavement. He may be required to bear it with patience, 
just as the individual smitten on the right cheek, must not 
resist, but bear it patiently. 

(4.) If the fact that servants are commanded to be "subject 
to their masters," proves that masters had a right to hold their 
servants as slaves, then the fact that Christians were com- 
manded to be subject to the "pov/ers that be" (Rom. 13: I,) 
proves that the requirements of Nero and Bloody Mary, were 
right; and Christians were to submit to tliem as being right. 
No one we presume will claim this. Then you may not, 
the former. Obedience in the Lord to civil Government, is 
right; but tyranny — despotism, always was wrong, whether 
in a Nero, or in a slaveholder; and every man knows that 
Slavery, is tyranny and despotism of the most absolute form. 

(5.) If the servants addressed, were Slaves as pro-slavery 
men claim, and if the fact that they are commanded to be 
obedient (in' the Lord, doing service as to the Lord) proves, 
that Slavery is right, then it proves that the Slavery of that 
ctga was right; "in which the master by law, had the power 
of life and death over his Slaves. Food and clothing depen- 
ded upon the will of the master, — The old and infirm were 
fi'equently turned out to die, when they became burdensome. 
Even Cato adopted this custom. Obedience was enforced 
by severe discipline. The rod, the whip, thongs, scourges 
loaded with lead, chain-scourges, the equaleus, lyre strings, 
the nngula and forceps, the rack, throwing from the capitoline 
rock, mutilation, crucification, burning alive — were the instru- 
ments and modes of punishment employed. Vedius Pollio, 
fed his fish wi;h the flesh of his Slaves." But do you say 
the Apostle prohibited these abuses — these cruel tips, but 
allowed the relation of master and slave to exist? Wed^mmd 
the proof. Wliere is the prohibition of those cruellies? 
There is no mors prohibition of these cruelties, than there is 
of the relation itself. Do you s^iy the Apostle commanded 
masters to give to their servants that which was just and 
equal; ws answer — This as much required them to give the 
Slave entire liberty, as it did that the master should give proper 
M 



08 DUTIES OF SER\'AXTS ANl) MASTERS C(J\S1DERE&. 

food, clothing and compensation for labor; for liberty is asr 
much a natural right as any of these; and a riwht far more 
precious to all men. Then if tiie Apostle sanctioned Slavery 
at all, he sanctioned the cruel Slavery above described — the 
Slavery of his day. Yet even Dr. Fuller himself tries to 
evade this. And so does Mr. W. E. Channing. See Prince- 
ton Repertory, 1836, pa. 278, 280. But do you say that 
Slavery like the conjugal and parental relations, is right, but 
the cruelties or abuses allowed by the Roman law were wrong? 
"VVe remark, tliis too is an assumption. If you should say 
that liberly, like the conjugal and parental relations, was right, 
then you would speak lorrucily. For the conjugal and pareiiial 
relations, are natural relations, and are therefore right. iSa 
liberty is the natural relation of man, and therefore right; laid 
even Dr. Rice says, "the tirst enslavement of man, was i>r& 
unrighteous thing." Just so far as the Roman law allowed 
the husband and parent to violate the natural relations, — (the 
conjugal and parental,) it allowed that which was wrong. 
And just so far as it allowed any of its citizens, to violate the 
natural relation of man — liberty, it did that which was, and /s- 
wrong.* So then, starvation, mangling, and murder is noS 

^The words of C. 51. Clay in his reply to Mr. Rice on tlie abo\-e points, 
are so pertinent and forcible, that they ought to be read by every eye: 
"Mr. R. says;" "Tlie question is not, whether the laws by which shivery 
is regulated are just or not? For by that rule the conjugal and paren'al 
relations are in themselves sinful! ' '-Let's strip him again! Tsow we 
both agree that man is by nature, free; that being nature then is not 
sinful. Again: marriage is by nature, we both agree, a right relation 
independent of law, and of course not sinful. Now the law takes hold of 
the free man and makes him a slave — which Mr. Rice admits "to be a 
crime of the iirst magnitude.'" Where then is the crime? In the law, 
of coursci — repeal the law and the crime ceases — the injury ceases! 
Now, once more the paiental relation and the marriage relation, was a 
good and pure one: but the Roman law comes in, says Mr. R., and gives 
the lather power of life over his child, and the husband power to degrade 
and lyranize over the wife. Indeed! what is the remedy'? Repeal the 
laws giving the improper power, and its conjugal relation, and the paren- 
tal relation is not objectionable! Eut now mark the culminating point 
of the sophistry! Therefore, marriage, parental, guardianship, and 
slavery are not in themselves sinful! It should have been stated thus: 
Therefore the marriage and the parental relation and LiuEnxr arc not 
in themselves sinful! For just so far as the law touched liberty at all, as 
well as the marriage relation, it contaminated it. It laid its foul hand 
upon the freeman, and degraded him into a sla\e. It laid its foul hand 
upon the husband and changed his love into brutality. It laid its loul hand 
ypon the parent, and he lorgot the father l"j becoming a master. We 



DVTIES OF SERVANTS AND MAST£U3 CONSIEAIIEE. i9 

tlaat alone which ra a violation of nature, but slavery — priva- 
tion of liberty is also. Then the injunction to patience, 
obedience, ami long suffering, does not lor a moinent sanction 
Slavery. Whilst then, the servant may bsar wilii patience 
and obedience his wroiiiis, he and his friends, and friends of 
the master, with kindness and meekness, may endeavor to 
show the master his duty, and entreat hiin to the performance 
of it. This will bring us to notice ihe duties enjoined upon 
masters. 

DUTIES OF MASTERS, 

They were such, as in conjunction with tiieleading doctrines 
of Christianity, made it the iniiaifest duly of the masters to 
free their slaves, (if slaves they had.) 

Christianity had already taught the world, that "God had 
made of one blood all nations of men." Acts 17: 2G. 
"Tliat of a truth God is no respecter of persons." Acts 10.: 
.34. "That among Christians one is your master even Christ 
AND ALL Ve are brf/fmrex." Math. 23: 8 — That they had 
one common Redeemer. And, if Christians, one cominoa 
home, Heaven. These principles being taught, the Apostle, 
after having enjoined upon servants to act, in their service, 
with conscience towards God — with fidelity, honesty, and 
with long suffering to their masters, adds: "and ye masier3, 
do the same things unto them, forbearing ihreating: knowing 
that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of 
persons with him." Ephcsians 6: 9. And, "Masters, give 
unto your servants that which is just and equal." Col- 4: L 

Now, what is '■'•just and equal"? This question shall not, 
for the present, be decided either by anti-slavery men, or pro- 
slavery men: but by the civil law, or ourcourts of justice. — 
What do they say is justice to a white servajiis? for Christi- 
anity makes no distinction on the ground of color; and tlie 
servants, or slaves, in th.e days of the Apostle, did not generally 
differ from their masters in color. Our courts of justice say: 
(1.) The servant shall have kind treatment, witli plenty of 
good food and clothing.. (2.) He shall have that amount of 

say then with Mr. Blanchard the laws are the basis, the bone and .slr.o-iT 
the tlesh and blood, of^lavery; dissol\e them and slavery falls, — nuhral 
right is untrammelled and tlic thing ''in itself is not sinlul"' lecnv.'eit ix 
■no more.'' Mr, Rice's argiimeu; is substantially the argument of W. E. 
Channing, about the parent-il aid governmental relation. S'ee riincctcii 
Repertory ISG'"'. pa. '378. 



100 DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIEERSD, 

insEruclion, which will fit him for efficiency, and usefulness in 
society. (3.) When he has attained the age of a freeman, he 
phall then go free, that he may engage in business for himself: 

for all tills the good of society, and glory. of God requires 

This, then, is what our courts of equity, and the mass of 
jTiankiud with one common consent, deem justice, and right. 
Then, the Apostle may be considered as saying:' Masters, 
with conscience before God, acting as you would to the person 
of Christ, (Matt. 25; 40, and 45;) act towards your servants 
with fidelit)^ patience, long suflering, forbearing even to make 
unhappy their condition by threatening; and when the}'' ar(5 
"of age," give them tiieir liberty, with a compensation for 
their toil: — what you would others should do unto you, were 
you a servant. This is '■'■justice and equcdilif in tlie eyes 
of ('hristianity. All this talk about food and clothing being 
justice and equality, to the adult Slave, is so palpably false, 
and absurd, that I wonder that any man, laying claims to 
integrily before God and man, shotdd utter it. If 'he free 
white laborer c^n justly cam 7ncrf than his food and clothing, 
then the slave, who labors as haid or harder, can earn more 
than food and clolhinir. What means this seventy-five, or a 
hundred dollars, which the hirer pays to the master, besides 
food, clothing, doctor's bill. etc,, for a year's labor of the slave; 
but that his labor is worth that much more than food and 
clothing? Do you say the master has paid some hundreds of 
dollars for him. 'J'lien we answer: If the master did not 
pay it to the servant, who rightfully owns himself, then he 
paid it to the wrong owner; and the servant ought not to be 
deprived of his liberty, his natural rights, and a fair com- 
pensation for his toil, because of the bad management of the 
master. It is clear then, that justice and equality to the servant 
is more than food and clothing- It is also clear, that if any 
one of the primitive Christians did hold slaves, they, in 
obedience to the principles taught by Christ, their Saviour, 
and the plain precept of the Apostle, could not hold them aa 
slaves without sinning against God and man. 

Further, in 1 Cor. 7: 21, the Apostle says to servants, "art 
thou called, being a servant, care not for that;" that is, be not 
more anxious about your condition in thi« world, than your 
spiritual condition. "The expression is like thatin Matt.6: 34; 
"Take therefore no Ihought for the moirow." This does 
not litterally forbid that we shall make any provifion for the 
nicfrrow, but this: "seek fir^t the kingdom of God" — be not 



DUTIES OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS CONSIDERED. 101 

SO much concerned about the things of the morrow, or this 
world, as your soul. So in the present case, the Aposlle saya 
to ihe servant, be not more solicitous about your pGrsonnUiberty 
than the salvalion of your soul: you can be a Christian if you 
are a slave and oppressed. He does not forbid him to desire 
liberty; for he immediately adds, tiiat it is his duty to use it, 
if he can: "If thou mayest be free, use it rather." Now, 
note this: The Apostle has here decided thai liberty is a 

BETTER STATE FOR THE SLAVE THAN BONDAGE. TIlCU let nO 

man ever say, against holy writ, ' that slaves are as well ofl* 
Jis if they were free." Now comes the point. The Mpostle 
having decided that freedom is a better condition than 
bondage, every master ivho ivoidd obey Christ, in loving 
his neighbor as himself — do unto others as he ivoidd others 
should do unto him, and obey tlie precept of the Aposlle, 
"masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal," 
teas religiously bound tn give liberty to his slave, if he had 
one. If the servant was a hireling, the master should give 
him a fair compensation for his toil. What was then true, is 
true now. Then, the precepts given to both servants and 
masters, are such as give no tolerance to slavery; but in the 
language of Scott, they are such, "if obeyed, would infallibly 
destroy it." 

PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS IN TIIS FORM OF OBJECTfONS. 

1. It is objected, if Christianity gives no tolerance to slaver}", 
why did the Apostles tolerate slave-holders in their com- 
munion? We answer tliis is a point not proved, and by 
consequence, not conceded. The evidence relied upon, is 
mere verbal criticism; which, in the language of Dr. Bishop, 
"must be very inconclusive reasonin/ as tj historic matter of 
fact. The texts relied upon in support of the objection are 
Eph. 6: 5-9, 1 Tim. 6: 1, 2 and the EpisUe to Philemon. 
We will examine the texts, in the above order. 

Eph. 6: 5-9, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your 
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sin- 
gleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service 
as men-pleasers; but as tiie servants of Christ, doing the will 
of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the 
Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing 
any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whetli- 
er he bs bond or free. And ye masters do the same things 
unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing that your mn<!ter 



102 paO-SLAVKRY ARGU.^IENTS 

is in Heaven; neither is there respect of persons with ni:.!," 
If it be claimed, as is usual, thai the word masters (kurioisjin v 
5, means slaveholders, then on the same authority in v. 9, the 
christian master (kuriosj means slaveholder: — i. e. the merci- 
ful God holds slaves — persons in involuntary servitude. Every- 
man must know that this is not true, and by consequence noth- 
ing can be inferred from this text in favor of slavery, because 
these servants had masters. This term as we have shov/n, is 
often used to designate householders, employers, guardians or 
teachers. The wi)rd servant ('(/ou/osj as we have shown also, 
does not of necessity mean slave; and that these servants were; 
not held as slaves, is clear from the fact that tne masters were 
required to act towards the servants as the servants were re- 
quired to act towards them: — ".Ye masters do the same things 
to them," — act with fear and tremljling before God, fearing 
least ye displease him by doing any injustice to his creatures, 
remembering that "you have a master in Heaven," who will 
"mete to every man as he measures to others;" for "he is no 
respector of persons," Here was the masters example and 
rule. But if he should hold his child, in what is called the 
ordinary free relations, and the child of another person as a 
slave, would not that UT^ster be a respector of persons? If 
the master should hold one man's child as a bound boy, until 
twenty-one, and the child of another as a slave, would he not 
be a respector of persons? If the master should give to one 
servant, as a hireling and contractor, that which was just and 
equal — a full equivalent for his labor, and then hold another 
servant (I)ecause he had on his side the advantage of human and 
unjust law,) a slave — held to involuntary and unrequited toil, 
would he not be a respector of persons? No man then, as we 
believe, could fully obey the above precept, and hold ^an- 
other as a slave. This text instead of sanctioning slavery, 
we consider a powerful one against slavery. We do not 
believe that a primitve cliristian master, with this precept be- 
fore him, any more dare hold a fellow-being as a slave, than 
he would dare steal his preachers coat — the only coat of a 
beloved Paul or Timothy. Nor do I believe christains would 
dare do so now, were they free from false teachings — perver- 
sion of the Bible by man. The next text in order is, 1 Tim, 
C: 1,2. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their 
own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and 
his doctrine be not blasphemeil.' And they that have believing 
masters, let them not despise /^ew, because they are brethren; 



IN THE rOKM OF OBJECTIONS. 103 

vut rather do ihem service, because they arc f^itliful and belov- 
ed, partakers of the benetit." That the servants addressed in 
the dist verse were slaves, we think is most probable; and 
that their masters were heathen masters is a point not denied; 
for if they were not, and were christian masters, then there 
would have been no danger of their "blaspbemmg the name 
of God" even should their servants not honor them. This 
is clear. And that the servants of believing masters, address- 
ed in the second verse, were not slaves, is, we think, equally 
clear. 

1. They are contrasted with those in the first verse. — 
'The greek word de, which we translate and, or, but, is used 
to mark an anti-lhelic sentence' (Stewart's Gr. Gram. § 150, 
5.) Again the phrase, "Let as many servants as are under 
the yoke" &c. — This evidently implies that there are some 
servants (doidous,) not under the yoke: just as the expression, 
in John 1: 12. But as many as received him, &c., implies 
that some did not receive Christ." Mow there vvfas no pro- 
priety in this contrast, unless there was a difference in the 
relation or condition of the servants. 

2. The two classes of servants are designated by different 
phraseology. The notes of Bro. Brisbane on this passage, are 
so pertenent and forcible, that we shall insert them and ask 
special attention to them. "Paul says. Let as many servants 
as are under the yoke,\.h\x\. is, let all the servants in the church, 
actually under the government of their masters count their 
own masters worthy of all honor. And, why? Because, if 
they do not, their masters will blaspheme the name of God 
and his doctrine. But christians would not blaspheme; con- 
sequendy the masters of the servants "under the yoke," must 
have been unbelievers or Pagans. The deduction is clear, 
that christians did not have servants under the yoke. But 
Paul then addresses Timothy concerniug another class of ser- 
vants. What class was this? Mark, Paul did not say in the 
first instance, Let as many servants as hvive unbelieving mas- 
ters, but he left it to be inferred that they were imbelieving 
masters, from the condition of the servants themselves; they 
were under the yoke. What then was the other class of ser- 
vants? Why, those that have believing masters. But were 
these under the yoke also? If so, why address them thus? 
Had he not alrca.ly said as many as were under the yoke 
should count their own masters worthy of all honor, and did 
Rot this include the masters of all those under the yoke* 



104: FKO-SL.WliRV ARGUM£X'13 

If it did, then why, after telling them to honor their masters^ 
add that they must not despise them? This would be super- 
fluous. But the plain inference is, that this other class of 
servants v/ere not under the yoke, and this is left to be under- 
stood bv the mere consideraiion that they had believing mas- 
ters. And they, says he, that have believing masters, let them 
not despise them because they are brethren; that is, because 
their masters are their bretliren, and consequenily have not 
authority over them like other masters iiave over their ser- 
vants; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and 
beloved brethren, who are partakers of the benefit of that ser- 
vice." 'J'his phrase, "partakers of the benefit," lends, as we 
"believe, additional evidence that the servants of these chrisiian 
masters were not held as slaves, but as freemen; — they were 
partakers — sharers in the products ef their own labor. Some 
suppose tliat the phrase "partakers of tht; benefit" means that 
the masters too were with the slaves, sharers in the Gospel 
blessing — sharers of the special grace of God. However 
true it might be, that the masters were sharers of the Gospel 
blessings, this is not, as we suppose, what is meant by the 
phrase as here used. As xMcKnighl correcdy observes, the 
Greek word "euergesia, benefit, is no lohere used to denote 
the Gospel.'^ The word is here used to denote the service 
of the servant — products of his labor. So Whitby in loco. 
And so Clark renders it. The Greek word which is here 
correctly rendered "yjar/aAvrs," comes from a word which as 
Robinson shows, means "to take part in." Clark translates 
the whole phrase thus: "joint partakers of the benefit" — i. e. 
products of labor. 1 hese mailers were not monopolizers, 
but sharers with the servants in the benefit of the service, — 
treating them according to the ordinary free relations of life; 
and thus doing to others as they would others should do to 
them; and obeying the Apostle when he said, "Masters give 
unto your servants that which is just and equal." No 
otlier course, as we have seen, would be just and equal.* 
But does the objector say, 'servants treated thus- would not 
be under any temptation to despise their masters: that their 

* And if these servants were lie'.d by christians un:ler the yoke, this 
fact would be no evidence that the.-e christians were doingr g'ht; ibr God 
had said by the mouth of his prophet '-break every yoke and let the 
oppressed go free.'" That Slavery always was oppression every body 
hnows. And if christians were practicing it. they were doing wrong. 
But vre don't believe thcv d:d. 



IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 105 

would be no necessity for such an injunction to freemen; and 

therefore the servants addressed must have been slaves?' 

We remark (1.) your objection necessarly presupposes that 
there is something in Slavery which would naturally provoke 
a man to despise his oppressor. But if it were a natural and 
righteous, or lawful relation, then there would be nothing in it 
to provoke a man to despise his enslaver, more than in a state 
of freedom. But your objection necessarily presupposes that 
there is. — It is therefore wrong; and at the peril of your soul 
you are bound to quit it immediately; for the Aposilesays: "It 
is good neither to eat flesh, not to drink wine nor any thing 
wliereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended or is made 
iveak.'' "For when ye sin so against tiie brethren, and 
wound their weak conscience ye sin against Christ." Rom 
14: 21, 1 Cor. 8: 12. 

But (2.) whilst freedom does not, like slavery, occasion 
hatred, yet it is possible for persons in the ordinary free rela- 
tions of life to despise even those who are their benefactors. 
Hagar, (who could religiously and devoutly cry, "thou God 
seest me,") so soon as she was raised to the condition of a wife 
or concubine, despised her mistress. This promotion too, was 
done by the suggestionorimportunity of Sarah. Yet Hagar was 
tempted to despise her benefactress. We all know instances of 
men who have been raised suddenly from the condition of poor 
apprentices, to rich freemen, whose vain hearts elated with 
promotion, pass scornfully the friend who taught their hand 
the skill by which their wealth and promotion were secured. 
These are facts, against .theory. Then those treated as free- 
men, might be tempted to despise their benefactors. And 
especially if their present masters or employers had once 
been their enslavers. For this, they might yet be tempted to 
despise them. 

If persons shall yet honestly insist that the fair inference 
from the language of the Apostle is, that the servants to chris- 
tian masters were servants under the yoke — were slaves, we 
reply: if they were regarded as slaves, by the civil law, and 
still in the service of heir former masters, it does not follow, 
that christian masters held them as slaves. The persons 
freed by christian masters, would remain with their former 
masters; for the Roman law made it difficult, and often impos- 
sible that the slave should be regarded by the civil law as a 
freeman. — See Gibbons' Rome, vol. 1, ch. 2, and Biblical 
Repository, vol. 6, pa. 411-36, In this respect some of the 



106 IPKO-SLAVERi' AROrMEMS 

servants of chrislians miglit be "under the yoke" — the restric- 
tion of the Roman law, yet not held so, so far as the claim of 
the christian master was concerned; just as the slaves eman- 
cipated in South Carolina by the Quakers, though held in the 
eye of the civil laiu as property — as slaves, still they were 
not so held or regarded by their former owners.* In the case 
of the primitive christians, as in the case of the Quakers, the 
law of Christ forbade the existence or practice of Slavery* 
And the christian servant was not to despise or feel revengeful 
towards his master, because he had once been enslaved by 
that master. This would be wrong; and injurious to the 
spiritual welfare of the servant. Tliere was then, propriety 
in the injunction of the Apostle, though the servant was not 
held as a slave by the christian master. And if the law of 
the land gave them uninterrupted privilege to go from under 
the care of these christian masters, still being, as we have 
shown, mutual partakers of the benefit — the products of their 
labor, it was best for these servants to stay with such masters. 
As persecuted and despised masters for their profession of 
Christianity, it would be difficult often for tliem to get help; 
and christian servants ought to feel an obligation to labor for 
such masters. Tlie above thought, distinguishing between 
the claim of the Roman law, and the claim (or no claim) of 
the christian master, may perhaps be found valuable. 

Pro-slavery men fall into a great mistake by interpreting 
the words master and servant, as used by the Aposde in 
addressing Christians, by our own Slave laws; or by the 
Slave laws of Greece and Rome. They infer that because 
the Apostles use the words master and servant, (despotes and 
doulos) when addressing little groups of Christians, governed 
by the law of Christ, that they meant by these terms property 
holders of men; andmfn held -as property — slaves; because 
this was the import of the terms in the Roman law. As well 
might they infer that when the Apostle spoke of the wife and 
child (gune and teknon) of a Christian, that the husband and 
father held that wife and child as slaves; exercising over 
them the power of life and death, because the Roman civil 
law allowed him the power to do so: and so far as the record 
goes the Apostle never once said this was wrong:— that 
Christian fathers and husbands must not exercise this 

* And there was not found inju^stice enough in the community to 
enforce the law and make the servant.-? of those Quakers again slaveg.- 



IN" THE rORM OF OBJECTIONS. 107 

power. The words of William Hague, in his review of 
Wayland and Fuller, are very pertinent. "In all these exhi- 
bitions of the scriptural doctrine, we doubt not that there is a 
cardinal mistake; and that mistake is in defining the relation 
denoted by the words "servant" and "master," doulos, and 
kurios or despofes, by the law of Rome instead of "the law 
of Christ." In the community of Christians this latter gov- 
erned all relations. For unto whom were these ^three epistles 
of Paul and one of Peter, which contain the passages referred 
to, originally addressed? To the world at large? No. To the 
subjects of the Roman empire, as such? No. To men, as 
men and citizens? No. They were addressed to little com- 
munities of Christians voluntarily united as churches, as those 
who were "called to be saints," "the faithful brethren in 
Christ;" to those who had "come out from the world and 
been separate;" to the regenerated, baptized, and sworn sub- 
jects of the Messiah's kingdom; to those who had received, 
as their first lesson, the doctrine that, unless they could wil- 
lingly give up, "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or 
mother, or wife, or children, or lands" (or servants), "for their 
Lord's sake, the^^ were not worthy of him." Before the 
epistles were written, all these persons had risen above the 
level of the Roman law to a higher moral realm, wherein 
Christ swayed a sceptre of sovereignity; unto whom, looking 
up, they could say, with the voice of a common adoration, in 
response to his own announcement to them: "Thou only art 
our master and all we are brethren." Such laws and 
such a change modified at once all tlie then existing relations 
of life — "held forth to their view a new doctrine of right, a 
new standard by which to judge of all the duties pertaining 
to the connections in which they stood. 'J'hat this ca-se is 
true and just, will appear further, if we consider how greatly 
a knowledge of the law of Christ modified a Christian's 
sense of duly touching the other permanent relations of life. 
It is certainly an error into which many have fallen, to dis- 
cuss this subject as if, by the law of Rome, flie right of slave- 
properly inhered only in the relation indicated by the tvords 
master and servant; whereas it per ained as really to tho 
relation indicated in the New Testament by the words gcncKS 
and teknon — parent and child. Any school-boy may learn 
the origin of this domestic slavery from the first chapter of 
Goldsmith's History of Rome. It is clear, not only from. 
Cicero, in his treatise on the laws, but from nearly all the 



108 PRO-SLAA'ERV ARGUMENTS 

Roman writers, historians, and poets, that every father had 
the power of life and death over his children — could expose 
them to death in infancy; and not only so, but a child was 
not deemed legitimate, or treated as such, unless the father 
took it formally from the ground, and placed it on his bosom. 
Dr. Adam, in his Roman Antiquities, presents the followino- 
statements : "Even when his children were grown up, the 
father might imprison, scourge, send them bound to work in 
the country, and also put them to death by any punishment 
he pleased, if they deserved it. Hence, a father is called a 
domestic judge or magistrate, by Seneca. A son could acquire 
no property but by his father's consent; and what he did thus 
acquire was called his peculitim, as that of a Slave. The 
condition of a son was, in some respects, harder than that of 
a Slave. A Slave, when sold once, became free; but a son, 
not, unless sold three times." In his history of the Decline 
and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon remarks: "The ex- 
clusive, absolute, and perpetual dominion of the father over 
his children, is peculiar to the Roman jurisprudence, and 
seems to be coeval with the foundation of tiie city. The 
paternal power was instituted or confirmed by Romulus him- 
self; and, after the practice of three centuries, it was inscribed 
on the fourth table of the Decemvirs. In the forum, the 
Senate, or the camp, the adult son of a Roman citizen enjoyed 
the public and private rights of a person: in his father's house, 
he was a mere thing; confounded by the laws with the 
moveables, the catUe, and the slaves, whom the capricious 
master might alienate or destroy without being responsible 
to an earthly tribunal. The hand which bestowed the daily 
sustenance might resume the voluntary gift ; and whatever 
was acquired by the labor or fortune of the son, was imme- 
diately lost in the property of the father. At the call of 
indigence or avarice, tlie master of a family could dispose of 
his children or his slaves. According to his discretion, a 
father might chastise the real or imaginary faults of his chil- 
dren by stripes, by imprisonment, by exile, by sending them 
to the country to work in chains among the meanest of his 
servants. The majesly of a parent was armed with the 
power of life and death; and the example of such bloody 
executions which were sometimes praised and never pun- 
ished, may be traced in the annals of Rome beyond the times 
of Pomp ey and Augustus,''^ 



IN THE FOUM OF OBJECTIONS. 109 

'•Not only in the relation of the child to the father, but also 
in that of the wife to the husband, did the Roman law estab- 
lish a power adverse to the precepts and spirit of Christianity. 
In case of any offence wliatever, the husband was the supreme 
judge, invested with authority to acquit her or to condemn 
her to death. The law placed her like a slave at his feet, 
and her life hung on his decree. Observe the testimony of 
Dionysius Haiicarnassensis on this point: — "The law obhged 
the married women, as having no other refuge, to conform 
themselves entirely to the temper of their husbands. — But if 
she comm.tted any fault, the injured person was her judge, 
and determined the degree of her punishment. In case of 
adultery, or where it was found she had drunk loine (which 
the Greeks would look upon as the least of all crimes), her 
relations, together with her husband, were appointed her 
judges, who were allowed by Romulus to punish both these 
crimes with death.'' This law, of so ancient date, continued 
to be operative under the empire. Tacitus mentions a case 
which occurred at Rome, in tbe year 57, in the reign of Nero." 

"Between a Roman citizen and a foreigner there could be 
no legal marriage,* and the offspring of such a union were 
deemecl illegitimate.! "Of this firmly established law there 
was no change until the days of the Emperor Caracalla. 
During more than two centuries of the Christian Era, the 
children who m ly have sprung from the marriage of a Roman 
citizen and a Jew, or a Greek, were denied the rights and 
honors of a legitimate birth. Paul himself, who was a Roman 
citizen, declared that he had a right to "lead about a wife" 
with him; but had he or any one of the Roman converts been 
pleased to marry a Galatian or a Syrian Christian, the law 
would, as far as concerned civil rights, have placed the off- 
spring of such a union on a level with the children of a base 
and criminal connection." Now when the Apostle, address- 
ing Christians, speaks of husband and wife (aner and gtine) 
parent and child (goneus and teknon) are we to infer, that 
under the law of Christ, the wife and child might be held in 
the same relation as under the Rornan liw? No man will 
claim that the Christian husband or parent might have, or 
exercise this power. So when the AposUe is addressing 
Christians under the law of Christ, and speaking of servant 

* Non erat cum extenio connubiuni. Senec. Ben. iv. 35, 
f Livy, xxxviii. 36. 



110 PRO-SLAVERY ARGU5IEXT5 

and master — doulos and kurios (or despotcs in one instance 
only) we are not to infer that the servant of the Christian 
master was held, or might be lield in the same relation as 
the servant of a Heathen master under the law of Rome. 
The law of Christ which was the law of love ("Whatsoever 
ye wnidd others should do unto you do ye even so unto 
them",) was now the rule of duty, the standard by which 
every relation in life was to be regulated. If then, the same 
term be used to designate the servant of a Christian, as that 
used to designate the servant of a Pagan citizen of Rome, it 
docs not follow that the servant of the Christian, was held in 
the same relation, as the servant of the Pagan citizen. As 
the law of Christ destroyed the property tenure in the wife 
and child, so it destroyed the properly tenure in the Slave.* 
This argument is to my mind very forcible. 

W. E, Channing (Princeton Repertory pa. 280) wants to 
know if Slavery was wrong, why the Apostle did not tell the 
master to set his slave free, when slavery existed all around 
him, sactioned by ihe Roman law? We ask, if the enslave- 
ment and the murder of the son by the father, and the arbi- 
trary murder of the wife by the hushaiid was wrong, (which 
Mr. Channing will not deny) why did not the AposUe tell 
parents, and husbands not to do these things, wliich, like 
Slaverj', were all around him and sanctioned by the law? We 
answer : 1st. Neither we, nor Mr. Channing know whether 
the Apostle did, or did not tell masters to let their Slaves go 
free. 2d, We suppose the law of ''love to our neighbor as 
ourselves" made it unnecessary; and had already raised the 
Slave, together with the wife and child, up to the same moral 
level with the master, the husband, and the father. 'J'o tell 

* The position of many conamcntators that the Gospel did not effect 
the political relations of anyone is not true. It did often aflect them, 
and that to a change radical and entire. Among christians it destroyed 
the property tenure in the wife, the cliild, and the Slave. It did not allow 
christians even to go to law beibre the unjust. 1 Cor. G: i. It required 
men to preach in the '-name of Jesus, though the Sanhedrim or law of 
the land, forbade it." It made it sin in a christian to deliver up a chris- 
tian brother to the civil authorities to be punished, though the law of the 
land — the political relation required -'every man to deliver up the chris- 
tian to the civil authorities.'' Primitive Cliristianity was not a time- 
serving polic}"-, shaping itself to suit the ever-varying phases of political 
power. It proclaimed whatever was truth and right, and opposed error, 
whether found in a Nebncadnezzar, a Darius, a Herod — in the court, or 
in the sanctuary. 



IN THK FORM OF OBJECTIONS. HI 

the master to set his slave free, was no more necessary than 
to tell ihe father to set his own son free, or to tell the husband 
not to ixill his wife. 

Before dismissing this text (1 Tim, 6: 1,2) we remark, 
some writers tell us there was no Slavery in Asia Minor; the 
country wiiere were situated those churches to whom instruc- 
tion was given to masters. They state: "It was the policy 
of the Roman Empire to allow the conquered provinces to 
fetain, for the most part, their own laws, under Roman mas- 
ters, or ollicersi The ancient laws prohibited Slavery in 
these countries; and when conquered by the Greeks and 
Romans, Slavery was not introdu(;ed into .them ; so that at 
the time oi' writing these epistles, they were free from slaveryi 
They were free provinces of the Roman Empire. And if 
slavery was not in the country it was not in the church." 
If this were once clearly established, then there would be no 
hesitancy, about the import of the words master and servant. 
Nor of the term yoke, used in 1 Tim. 6: 1. It would then 
be understood not as designating a Slave relation, but a volun- 
tary engagement for a dehnite period of time; or the relation 
of a minor bound. And it is worthy of notice here, that the 
term yoke, as used in the Bible, is but seldom, if ever used 
to denote Slavery. It is often used to denote oppressive 
taxes, and bond-seivice, in the Old Testament. In the 
New Testament in every case, save this in 1 Timothy 6: 
1, it is used to denote a voluntary service; as: "Take 
my yoke upon yon, and learn of me." And if it could be 
clearly shown that at the lime these epistles were written, 
there was no Slavery in Asia Minor, then it would follow 
that in this instance also, it does not denote Slavery. Barnes 
however, tells us that large numbers of Prygians and Capa- 
docians, were taken as Slaves to Rome. "And that it ia 
asserted that there were six thousand Slaves, which belonged 
to the temple of a Goddess in Cappadocia. Hence, he says^ 
the words of Horace: Mancipiis locuples, eget aeris Cappa- 
docum rex." Who "asserted" this he docs not say. But 
suppose there were Slaves in Capadocia before, or at the time 
of Horace. That does not prove that there were Slaves there, 
and in other parts of Asia Minor, when these epistles were 
written. There were slaves in the British West Indies a few 
years since, but there are none there now. Now when we 
remember how litUe reliance is to be placed upon mere verba) 
criticism, aside from historic facts, and that historic facts i[> 
this case, defining the condition of the servant, arc wanting^ 



113 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS 

we see that we are driven to the last rule of exposition, and 
that is to interpret the words of the Bible in accordance with 
its well known Spirit, or principles; and tiiis we know is 
against Slavery, and in favor of equal liberty, and equal rights. 
And could it be made certain from historic facts, that Slavery 
existed in Asia Minor, and in those portions where were those 
churches addressed, still our previous argument meets the 
question fully, and gives the decision in favor of liberty. Oa 
that we rely, and notice this because in publishing a manual, 
all, or most, prominent questions, sliould be noticed. 

One more passage, brought forward in support of the first 
objection, remains to be examined. It is the case of Onesi- 
mus, as given in the epistle to Philemon. It is maintained 
that Onesimus was a Slave; had runaway from his Christian 
owner — Philemon: and that Paul recognized the lawfulness 
of Slavery by returning the man a slave to his master. See 
Dr. Junkin's pamphlet, and every body who attempts to 
apologize for Slavery. Concerning this case, we remark: 

1. No man can prove that he was a Slave; and not 
simply, either a bound person, or a hireling indebted to 
Philemon. 

2. The benefit spoken of in verse 14th, can be accounted 
for as readily on the ground that Onesimus was sinply a 
bound person, or hireling, as that of a slave. 

3. The fact that the Apostle expresses a doubt, (verse 18) 
as to whether Onesimus owed Philemon any thing, is proof 
that he was not a slave. Had the Apostle recognized Onesi- 
mus as the rightful properly — the slave of Philemon, then 
there could have been no doubt in the Apostle's mind as to 
whether he owed him any thing. Also, slaves do not become 
indebted to their masters. 

4. There is evidence in the epistle that Onesimus was a 
natural brother to Philemon — a younger brother, bound to the 
elder. This was very common in that age. Paul calls him 
»'a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto 
thee both in the flesh, and in the Lord." We know that 
Dr. Jnnkin has given a very lucid criticism on the adverb 
"'especially," showing that it qualifies beloved. As C. M. 
Clay said to Bro. Rice: "This is love's labor lost". No body 
denies it. Every school-boy knows it. And yet it is clear to 
'every mind, that there tvas some reason why Onesimus was 
more beloved to Philemon, than to Paul. It could not have 
oeen on the ground of civil relationship, for he had done service 



IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 113 

for Paul as well as Philemon; and that too, when the service 
to Paul was very much needed — under circumstances in 
which it would be likely to elicit as great affection as it was 
possible to extend to one not a blood relation. To Paul, 
Onesimus was a brother, especially or peculiarly beloved in 
the Lord, — as a christian, — in a spiritual aense. To Phile- 
mon he was not only a brother specially beloved in the Lord, 
but also a brother specially beloved in the flesh. (And Paul 
knew from previous acquaintance, this attachment and blood 
relationship.) This made Onesimus more especially beloved to 
Philemon than to Paul. That an elder brother in the flesh, 
and at the same time a Christian brother, should have a double 
attachment to a younger brother who had become a Christian, 
and was now returning from his wanderings to the path of 
rectitude, to meet his lawful obligations, is an intelligible 
reason for more special attachment, But no other as yet 
assigned, is, 

5. As Bro. Brisbane very appropriately suggests, if Onesi* 
mus had been a runaway Slave, he would not have been 
found courting the acquaintance of one who knew him and 
his master, and who could easily inform of his whereabouts. 
Fugitives in Ohio, do not generally court the presence of 
travelers from Kentucky ; especially if these travelers know 
them, and their masters. 

6. If it be still insisted that the servant here spoken of was 
a slave, and that doulos here means slave, as is claimed by 
pro-slavery men, then in the language of the Apostle (ver. 16) 
he returns Onesimus "not now a slave, but above a slave 
a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more to 
thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." And history informs 
us that he was afterwards Bishop of Ephesus. "Ignatius, 
wrhing concerning him, praises God that the church of Eph- 
esus had so good a Bishop." * If, then, he was a slave to 
Philemon, as is claimed, then the Apostle emancipated him 
immediately; and that too ^'■iipon the soil.'" The strongest 
anti-slavery man could ask no more. 

Then, take the case either way you will, neither the teachinfi 
nor the practice of the Apostle, for a moment tolerates slavery. 

2. A second objection is, that if slavery was wrong, why 
did not the Apostles command christians and all men, not to 

* See epistle of Ignatius to the church at Ephesus, as foundin Milncr"s 
Church History. 

o 



214 PRO-SLATERY ARGl'MEKTS 

enslave.* "If slavery was deemed by them to be a sin, not lo 
command masters to emancipate and cease to enslave, and 
content themselves by preaching principles, would have been 
the worst iorra of expediency — to act the traitor's part; they 
would have been faithless and craven '.eratds." So Doctor 
Fuller, and others. Much stress is laid upon this point by the 
advocates or apologists for Slavery. It is considered a strong 
hold; and yet no point is more easy of refutation, and of tri- 
umphant reply. We will answer the above question as Christ 
did on one occasion, by asking another or others. 

Why did not the Aposdes command christians and all others 
not to persecute? Persecution was very common in their 
day. It was "all around them"; and sanctioned too by law, 
"By a law of the Emperor, every man was required to deliver 
up the christiiin,to the civil authorities." Hague. Yetngainst 
this unjust and bloody system — this wholesale murder — this 
wicked law there is not a command saying, you must not per- 
secute. Do you say the epistles of the Apostles being directed 
to little bands of cliristians, governed by the law of love, and 
having a common interest in the cause of their religion, they 
did not need a specific command forbidding t'lem to persecute 
each other? So we say, governed as they were by the law of 
love, and having a common interest in the cause of Christ, 
tbey did not need a specific command to tell them not to en- 
slave. To enslavs was just as inconsistent with the law of luvc, 
as to persecute. No man can dispute this. 

Again, we ask why did not the Aposdes speak iigainst glat'. 
iatorial shows — those bloody butcheries, regulated by law, 
and in which men were made to figlit with tlieir fellow men 
and with beasts, to gratify a corrupt and cruel hearted popu- 
lace — fighting as they did before the vast multitude of mer, 
women, and chihlren in a stale of entire nakedness. Why 
did not the Apostles speak against these shows? Do you say 
I don't know why? Then we might say we don't know why 
he did not speak against slavery. Aad this silence, "so far as 
the record goes," is just as good in behalf of those bloody 
shows, as it is in behalf of slavery. As you cannot claim 
the Ibrmer to be right, merely from the silence of tlie Aposde, 
so from the silence of the Aposde, you cannot infer that the 

* W. E. Channing, ia an article published in the Princeton Eepertoiy 
for 1 830, pa. 2'77, 278, 279. relies greatly on the above point — the silence 
of Christ and his Aj-ostles. So do most all afok)ui^ts lor slavery. 



IN THE FORM OF ORJECTIONS, 1 1 f) 

latter is right. Do you say the law of love and the spirit of 
the sixth commandment was against these shows? So we say 
the law of love and the spirit of the eighth commandment 
which says "Thou shalt uol steal" — and forbids all kinds of 
robbery, and theletterof the tenth commandment which says 
thou shall not covet any thing that is thy neighbor's, not even 
his service, his person or his liberty, these were and are 
against slavery. 

Again, why did not the Apostle speak against robbery? — 
tell men they must not rob the houses or pockets of others? 
There were hordes of men in their day, who lived by robbing 
travelers and the houses of defenceless persons. Yet, "so fur 
as the record goes," the Aposde has no wiiere forbidden men 
to rob. Do you say they needed no specific command from 
the Apostle against this sin; tor it was contrary to the light of 
nature and the sixth commandment? So, Ave say Slavery 
was contrary to the light of nature, and of the same sixth 
commandment. 

Wiiy did not the Apostle speak specifically against gam- 
bling, and counterfeiting? In all the epistles it is not once 
said, yO'U must not gamble or counterfeit. Do you say he 
forbade these when he said "let no man go beyond and defend 
his bfother in any matter"? So we say he forbade slavery 
when he forbade oppression (1 Thes. 4: 6 — see the margin) 
and extortion. See 1 Cor. 5: 11. 6: 10. That slavery is 
oppression and extortion in the highest degree, no man can 
successfully deny. And if to give a man a counterfeit note 
or coin, for five days labor, and thus get his labor without 
giving him an equivalent, is fraud, — then to take a man's labor 
for five years, yea, for a hfetime; yea, his body, his wife, 
his child, — this is fraud that earth cannot measure, and heaven 
has told, only in the tragedj of mystical Babylon, the "smoke 
of whose torment ascendeth up forever and forever". Slavery 
was her crime. Read it. Rev. 18: 13. 

Lastly, on this point, we notice two most cruel and inhu- 
man sins of the age, in which the AposUe lived; and yet he 
has said nothing about them. As we have already seen, the 
husband and the father, by the Roman law, had the power of 
fife and death over the wife, and the child. The wife might 
be put to death for drinking wine, or the most trivial offence, 
•"The law placed her like a slave at his feet, and her life hung 
on his decree." Sliould the innocent and obedient wife, be 
so unfortunate as not to have been by birth a Roman citizen. 



116 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS 

then she might be cast oft' at any whim of her husband — left 
without a home, with no protection of law, and her children 
pronounced illegitimate, and "placed upon a level with a base 
and criminal connection ;" yet essential as is the marriage 
relation — the protection of wives and children to the welfare 
of society, and as cruel and inhuman as was the above law, 
yet "in the epistles of Paul, all of which were addressed to 
persons living under the Roman empire, no care is taken to 
guard the churches against the specific evils of this Pagan 
legislation, which, in the eyes of multitudes, had been em- 
balmed and hallowed by time; had been blended with the 
very elements of domestic and social life; had been sustained 
in every age by the most illustrious examples, and had inter- 
woven itself with the earliest remembrances and associations 
of the civilized world, touching human rights, the fitness of 
things, and the moral order of the universe. Strange as it 
may seem to some, no husband, in all the realm of the Csesars,. 
is told that his wife had been raised by Christianity above the 
level of her condition under the Roman law. No one is told 
that the domestic despotism, on which Roman society was 
based, was an abomination in the sight of Heaven, and that 
it was a contravention of the original law of Paradise, which 
placed the man and the woman on the ground of a true moral 
equality." And are we to infer from the silence of the Apostle 
that this domestic despotism was right? That this more than 
brutal cruelty was sanctioned by the Gospel of love? No 
man dare claim it. And yet the argument of silence is just 
as much in favor of this, as of slavery. 

Also, the power of life and death over the son, was in the 
hands of the father. "In his father's house he (the son) was 
a mere thing: confounded by the laws with the moveables, 
the cattle, and the slaves, whom the capricious master might 
alienate or destroy without being responsible to any earthly 
tribunal." And shall we say that this inhuman custom, and 
this cruel law was sanctioned by the Aposde because there is 
no specific denunciation of it in his epistles? No man will 
claim this. And yet the argument of silence is just as good 
for this form of cruelty as for slavery. But do you say this 
"domestic despotism" was forbidden by the plainest principles 
of humanity, and by that command which says, "Thou shah 
not kill." So we say slavery was forbidden by the plainest 
principles of humanity, and those commands of the decalogue 
which say "Thou shall not steal," and "Thou shalt not 



IX tllE FORM OF OHJECTIOS'S. 117 

covet." — Especially by the law of Christ, which requires us 
to "do unto others as we would they should do unto us." — 
"Love thy neighbor as thyself." In the realm of Christ, 
with those who had risen superior to the Roman law, who 
■would not "go to law before the unjust," whose only rule of 
action was the law of love, the wile needed no specific com- 
mand to secure her protection — the son no specific command 
to secure his emancipation, and the servant no specific com- 
mand to secure his freedom. In this realm, and under this 
law it was enough to the husband, parent and master to say: 
"Husbands love your wives" — "Fathers provoke not your 
children — "Masters give unto your servants that which is just 
and equal;" and the rights of all were secured and placed 
upon that platform of equality which, "nature and nature's 
God had established." There are many other practices of 
men which are admitted to be wrong, yet the Apostle has 
given no express prohibition of them: and we may just as 
correctly infer that the Apostle did not consider them sin- 
ful, as we may infer that he regarded slavery as not sinful 
because he did not say in so many words. Slavery is sinful. 
Then we come to this conclusion, that none of the passages 
relied upon, nor the silence of the Apostles, "so far as the 
record goes," prove that the Apostles tolerated or sanctioned 
slavery in any way; or that slaveholders were members of 
the primitive churches. That they were no! is clear: because, 
1, The principles of Christianity, as we have seen, are 
opposed to slavery. This point is admitted by the large body 
of the apologists for the existence of slavery in the church. 
They say, "the consequence of acting on the principles of 
the Gospel, of following the example and obeying the pre- 
cepts of Christ — would be the peaceable and speedy extinc- 
tion of slavery." Princeton Repertory. Now the principles 
of the Gospel will destroy nothing lliat is good or laicful. It 
is opposed to, and will destroy only "that which is moralh/ 
tvrong.'''' "It is a fair conclusion therefore, that if christianitv 
would abolish slavery, it is sinful;'''' and that Christianity in 
its beginning would not take this moral wrong — this sin into 
its bosom. Would the inspired Apostles in setting up a church 
that was to teach the world righteousness and true holiness, 
take into it an institution, a practice, knowing that "«7 is sin- 
fuW'' The absurdity is too gross to be sustained for a 
moment. Also, if the principles of Christianity be against 
slavery then it is a plain violation of all rules of interpretation 



118 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS 

to SO coiislrue its specific precepts as to make them contradict 
or destroy its fouiuluiion principles. 

2, Tiie organization of the Apostolical churches, forbids 
the idea, that slavery was tolerated amongst them. "And all 
that believed were together, and had all things common; and 
sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all as 
every man had need." Acts 2: 44, 45; 4: 32, 34. Now 
would these christians sell their property — their "possessions 
and goods," liiat they might give to the poor, and at the same 
time rob their fellow man, yea, fellow Christian, of the right 
to personal ownership, of the very right to acquire, and hold 
property? yea, the privilege to go and worship his God where, 
when, and as he chose? Such an act would imply a moral 
absurdity too gross, and an outrage upon the rights of man too 
glaring, to be imputed to those whose hearts were filled with 
love to man as man, and whose minds were illumined by that 
spirit which taught them tha "God had made of one blood 
all nations of men;" and "of a truth he is no respeclor of 
persons." 

3. The precept of the Apostle in 1 Tim. 1: 10 forbids the 
£dea that Slaveholders were in the Apostolic churches. 

The Apostle, speaking to Timothy concerning the law given 
by God through Moses, says: "'j he law is made for murder- 
ers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for man-slayers, for 
whoremongers, for them that deHle themselves with mankind, 
for MEN-STEALERs, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there 
be any thing contrary to sound doctrine," — the glorious Gos- 
pel of the blessed God being [he standard; — see verse 11. 
That slavery was opposed to, or condemned by the Gospel, 
we have already seen. It is therefore, by the teaching of the 
Apostle, condemned by the law. But the word which is here 
translated "men-stealers." condemns slavcholding, directly 
and expressly. The original Greek word for man-stealers is 
andrapodistes. This is formed from the verb andrapodidzo, 
(see Robinson) which means "to enslave." This is its true 
and primary meaning. No man will or can dispute this, 
^ndrapodistes, comhig from this verb, means "one who 
makes a slave in any of the senses of andrapodidzo.^' Don- 
eegan. 'J'hen andrapodistais, the word which, in the above 
text, is translated menstealers, means not only those who kid- 
nap or who seize men and bring them into bondage, but also, 
and primarily, it means those who enslave men — hold them 
m bondage. This view is also in accordance with reason and 



IN THE I'OUM OF OBJECTIONS. 1 IS 

justice. What would you think of that interpretation of tho 
Gospel, that would condemn and exclude ihe original horse 
thief, and then hold as a saint the man who would conceal 
and use that horse. Is not the participant of crime as guilty 
as the perpetrator of the lirsl act? Is not the smuggler of 
goods as guilty as he who first stole? And suppose" human 
laws should say the smuggler shall be prote^tL'cl, could these 
laws alter the moral character of the deed? could they make 
black, white? — evil, good? And should ihe smuggler take 
advantage of this law — force of numbers, would ho be any 
the less guilty in the sight of the moral law and of God? 
Every man must say he would not. The above exposition 
has been confirmed by some of the highest Ecclesiastical 
authorities in Christendom. In the Confession of Faith of 
the Presbyterian Church, as amended by act of the General 
Assembly of 1794, and appended to the 142d question of the 
larger catechism, will be found the following note in exposition 
of 1 Tim. 1:10, tlie text under consideration. "The law is 
made (ovman-'itealers. This crime among the Jews, exposed 
the perpetrators of it, as we have seen,to capitol punishment: 
(see Exod. 21: 17;) and the Apostle here classes them with 
sinners of the first rank- The word he uses, in its original 
import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any 
of the human race into Slavery, or in retaining tuem in it. 
Stealers of men are those who bring off slaves or freemen, 
and KEEP, se/l or buy them. "To steal a freeman," says 
Grotius "is the highest kind of theft. In oiher instances we 
only steal human property; but when we steal or retain j/jp/i 
in slavery, we seize those who in common witli ourselves, 
are constituted, by the original grant, lords of the earth. — 
Gen. 1: 28." 

Dr. Adam Clark, a Methodist divine, in his Comment on 
the above text, has these words: "Andrapodistais, Slave- 
dealers; whether those who carry on the traffick in human 
flesh and blood; or those who steal a person in order to sell him 
into bondage; or those ivho buy such stolen men or iromen; 
no matter of what colour, or what Country; Or the Nations 
who legalize, or connive at such traffic; all these are Men- 
stealers, and God classes them with the most flagitious of 
Mortals." 

In the Methodist Discipline as amended 1784, in answer 
to the 42d question, — "what shall we do to extirpate slavery t" 
in answer, tive rules are appended. 



120 PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENTS 

1, Every member of our society who has slaves in liis 
jiossession, shall, within twelve months after notice given to 
him hy the assistant, legally execute and record an instrument, 
whereby he emancipates and sets free every Slave in his 
possession." * *. Infants born in Slavery were to be 
emancipated immediately. Those under twenty, at twenty- 
five. Those between the ages of twenty and twenty five, 
immediately; or at farthest when they arrive at the age of 
thirty: an so on with Every Slave until all were set free bj' a 
deed of emancipation, recorded. 

The Second rule required every assistant to keep a book 
in which should be recorded all the names and ages of all the 
Slaves, belonging to all the Members of the Circuit, and the 
time of each record of emancipation. 

3d. Rule permitted those who refuse to do so, to witlidraw: 

"otherwise the assht ant shall Exclude him in the Society ^ 

4th. Rule. 'No person so voltunarily withdrawn, or so 

excluded, shall ever partake of the Lords Supper with the 

Methodists, till he complis with the above requisitions." 

5th. Rule. "No person holding Slaves shall in future be 
admitted into Society, or to the Lords Supper, till he previously 
complies with these rules concerning Slavery." 

Question, 43. What sliall be done with those who buy or 
sell Slaves, or give them away? Answer: They are imme- 
diately to be expelled; unless they buy them on purpose to free 
them." * Thus Methodists and Presbyterians once regarded 
slave holding as a violation of the law of God, and a disci- 
plinablo offence. And we believe they would do so now, was 
it not for pro-slavery teaching, and that ignis-faliius, expedi- 
ency. The words of Bro. Brisbane, a Baptist Minister, w^ho 
was once a Slaveliolder in South Carolina, are so pertinent, 
and so forcibly elucidate the text under consideration, that for 
the good of readers who may not see his book on Slavery, I 
shall insert his words on the above text. "Paul was speaking 
of the law a^- having been made for men-stealers. Where is 
the record of that law. It is in Exod 21: 16. and in these 
words: He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be 
found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death. Here it 
will be perceived that it was a crime to sell the man, for which 
the seller must suffer death. But it was no less a crime to 
hold him as a slave, for this also was punishable with death. 

* S'ce Slavery and Episcopacy by Dr. Peck. 



IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS. 



Hi 



A man may be kidnapped out of slavery into freedom. — 
There was no law against that. And why? Because kid- 
napping a Slave and placing him in a condition of freedom, 
was only to restore him to his lost rights. But if the man 
who takes him becomes a Slave-holder, or a Slave-seller, then 
he is a criminal liable to the penalty of death, because he robs 
the man of liberty. Perhaps some will say this law was 
only applicable to the first holder of the slave, that is, the 
original kidnapper, but net to his successor who might have 
purcliased or inherited him. But what is kidnappinor?-ii 
Suppose I propose to a neighbour to give him a certain sum 
of money if he will steal a white child in Carolina and deliver 
him to me. He steals him, I pay him the money upon his 
delivering the child to me. Is it not my act as fully as hist-— 
Am I not also the thief? But does it alter ths case whether I 
agree beforehand, or not, to pay him for the child? He steals 
him and then sells him to me. He is found by his parents 
in my hands. Will it avail me to say I purchased him and 
and paid my money for him? Will it not be asked, do ydu 
not know that a white person is not Merchantable? And shall 
I not have to pay the damage for detaining that child in my 
service as a slave? Assuredly, not only in the eyes of the 
law, but in the judgment of the whole community, I would 
be regarded a criminal. So when one man steals another and 
offers him for sale, no one in view of the Divine law, can buy 
him for the reason that the Divine law forbids that man shall 
in the first place be made a merchantable article. The inquiry 
must be if I buy, I buy in violation of the Divine law, and it 
will not do for me to plead that I bought him. I have him 
in possession and that is enough. God condemns me for it 
as a man-stealer. My having him in possession is evidence 
against me, and the Mosaic law says if he be found in my 
hands, I must die. Now, when Paul said the law was made 
for men-stealers, was it not also saying the law was made for 
slaveholders? I am not intending to apply this term in a 
harsh spirit. But I am bound as I fear God, to speak what 
I am satisfied is the true meaning of the Apostle." 

That slaveholding is as sinful as the first kidnapping (in 
kindness we say it,) must be manifest upon a moment's reflec- 
tion. In what does the sin of kidnapping consist? Not in 
■imply removing a man from one country to another, for in 
so doing you may greatly improve his condition; and if you 
leave hini a free man, he will be very thanful to you for it; 
P 



122 PRO-SLAVERV ARCrMENTS 

Nor does it consist in rescuing him from those who haver 
robbed him of his liberty; as when Abraham rescued Lot 
from the four kings who had enslaved him (Gen. 14: 16). 
Abraham found Lot a slave — rescued him from the hand of 
the oppressor, — changed his location. But Abraham did not 
continue to hold him a slave, but left him a freeman. To Lot, 
the act was inestimable; and it was one so replete with disin- 
terested benevolence and christian duty, that Holy Writ will 
transmit it as a worthy and noble example to Adam's last son. 
The sin of kidnapping then must consist in holding the man 
in bondvge. Now this is the thing done by the slaveholder. 
It is clear then tliat the law in condemning the man-stealer 
equally condemns the slaveholder; for the sin of each is the 
some — the withholding freedom from man. It is clear then, 
that the Apostles did not receive slaveholders into the church; 
for they are here said, by inspiration, to be violators of the 
law; and classed with those who commit the most ''flagitious 
crimes" — with "murderers of fathers and mothers." Would 
ihey take such into the church? * All this can be said in the 
spirit of love. Christ loved sinners when he in great plain- 
ness told them of their sins, and so did the Apostle on the day 
of Penlicost: and by doing so, three thousand were converted 
in one day, and their souls made heirs of eterns'l glory. May 
(iod Almighty grant that the slaveholders of our country (for 
whom we arc willing to make sacrifice of all that this world 
holds dear) may in like manner see and obey the truth, that 
they may be eternally happy. 

5. We cannot suppose that the Apostle received slavehold- 
ers in the church; for manifestly slaveholding was then a dis- 
ciplinable offence. The Apostle Paul directing the church at 
Corinth (1 Cor. 5: 10) to exclude certain immoralities says: 
"Now I have written to you not to keep company, if any 
man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous or an 
iiolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with 
such an one no not to eat." "Therefore put away from 
among yourselves that wicked person." Here we see that 
extortioners in common with fornicators and drunkards were 

' V.'. E. ChanniR^j, hie Dr. Rice and Pr. Fuller, assumes that slave- 
holdera v.cre received into the primitive church, and therefore he concludes 
slaveholding cannot be sinful. See Princeton Repertory lor 1S36, April 
No. We deny his position and demand proof of his assumption. Where 
a man aEsnmes the ^loint in drbatf. v.itht tit pro'.ing it, tLich an act la- 
Called -be .rdnt; the av.e.tiou.' 



IX TilE FORM or OBJECTIONS. I'i'i 

Xo be excluded from the church. Now lliat slaveholding was, 
and is the worst form of extortion, there are but few men 
who will deny. It is therefore by common consent a disciplin- 
able offence, and as such could have had no place in the 
primitive church. 

To extort is to draw by force — to gain by oppression. I 
will mention a case. A man once loaned to his neighbor two 
hundred dollars for twelve months, and took a mortgage on 
his neighbor's farm, which joined his own. Twelve months 
rolled round, and the neighbor having been unexpectedly 
detained by sickness, come two days after the time and made 
a tender of the money. The man refused to accept it — closed 
the mortgage, and having the advantage— the power — the 
"force" on his side, drew from his neighbor his only home, 
— his farm worth a thousand dollars, when the man himself 
had an abundance. The neighbor could make about one 
hundred dollars a year, (which is the hire of a good slave in 
some places) clear of all expenses. By his industry and 
economy, he had bought his farm. The man in taking it, 
robbed him of the proceeds of his labor for eight years, with^ 
out giving him an equivalent. Now this was extortion, and 
the man who inflicted it was an extortioner. And the case 
seems aggravated because it was inflicted by a professed 
Christian upon a Christian, and a white man. But the slave- 
holder not only takes the slave's labor for eight years, but for 
a lifetime, without an equivalent. And not only this, but the 
body, the wife, and the children, whom God has given to the 
poor man. All this is done upon men, frequenUy as innocent 
and harmless as that neighbor, simply because the slaveholder 
has the power "the force," on his side. This is the worst 
conceivable form of extortion; and (in kindness we say it) 
the slaveholder is therefore the worst of all extortioners. 
Now the Apostle commanded that such persons be "put away 
from among you, with such, no not to eat." Thus, it is clear 
elaveholders were not in the Apostolic churches. We believe 
for the purity of our holy religion — the good of the master 
as well as the slave, the ofTence of slaveholding ought now 
to be disciphned, and the church that does not do it, disobeys 
the injunction of the inspired AposUe, and is recreant to her 
high trust. God designed the church to be a light to the 
world — to teach men righteousness and the road to eternal 
light. And the world looks to her for what is right. Her 
decision in almost every nation is admitted to be the standar4 



124 PRO-SLAVERY ARGinviENTS 

of right; for it is supposed that she speaks only according to 
the oracles of God. She speaks for holiness and it is done. 
She cries, observe the Sabbath. The Farmer lays aside his 
implements of husbandry, the Merchant closes his doors, and 
the Mechanic his workship. — 'The smoking furnace smothers 
her breath, and the iron horse upon the railway, rests from 
his rapid flight. Does she apologize for sin, and proclaim a 
sale of indulgence? A Tetzel is abroad in the land, and the 
people crowd in tumultuous throngs to receive measured sin. 
So when oppressions, grievous lobe borne, and extortion that 
reaches to the soul — slavery; — if this may receive her sanc- 
tion, and have the mantle of Patriarchal purity thrown over 
it by her, it will live, though knowingly and confessedly it 
sucks the life's blood of the nation. And ineflective will be 
your appeals to men on the ground of temporary benefit. And 
so long as men can find a resting place in the sanctuary; they 
will seek present ease, and risk the consequences of national 
interests for coming generations. But strip the iniquitous sys- 
tem of the sacred livery of Heaven, and let the naked soul 
tremble in view of its final destiny, and "all that a man hath 
will he give for his life." And whilst I believe it is true that 
the church is now the bulwark of Slavery, yet if she would 
raise her united voice against it, all the powers on earth could 
not save it. Not only is this the way to secure the purity of 
religion, the welfare of the nation, and the freedom of the 
slave, but also the spiritual welfare of the master. The in- 
cestous person (1 Cor. 5: 5) was to be delivered unto Satan 
i. e. to be cast out from the church, into the world, which is 
Satan's kingdom) for the destruction of the flesh, (i. e. as a 
means of inducing him to put away his lustful habits, seeing 
that they were inconsistent with religion) "that his spirit 
might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So, we believe 
there is nothing that would so effectually bring the slaveholder 
to repent of his sin, and put away his extortion, as to be 
shown that it is a sin that ruins the soul — excludes from God's 
kingdom on earthi and if willingly and knowingly persisted 
in, must exclude from his kingdom in Heaven: for the Aposfle 
adds in the next cuapter (1 Cor. 6: 9, 10) "Neither fornica- 
tors, nor drunkards, nor thieves, nor extortioners, shall inherit 
the kindom of God." 

Lasfly. The known belief and practice of the early Chris- 
tians, forbids the idea that slavery was tolerated in the Apos- 
tolic churches. They deemed it one of their highest duties. 



IN THE FORM OF OD.IECTIOXS. ViS, 

io redeem and emancipate those who were enslaved; and for 
this purpose, they made great sacrifices, and expended vast 
sums of money. Clement, (who hved at the time of the 
Apostle Paul, 'was fellow laborer with him,' and 'whose name 
is in the book of life,' Phil. 4: 3,) in his Epistle to the Corin- 
thians says: '*We have known many among ourselves, who 
have delivered themselves into bonds and slavery, that they 
might restore others to their liberty." Can we tliink that 
these Christians, who were members of the Apostolic 
chnrches, looked upon Christianity as tolerating Slavery? 
They who were pupils of, and fellow laborers with the 
Apostle, certainly knew the mind and practice of the Apostle 
on this matter. Paulinius, Bishop of Nola, expended his 
whole estate ; and then sold himself in order to accomplish 
the same object. 

Cyprian sent to the Bishop of Numidia two thousand five 
hundred crowns, in order to redeem some captives. Acacius, 
Btshop of Amida, melted down the gold and silver plate of 
his church, with which he redeemed captives, taken and 
enslaved by the Romans. Ambrose of Milan, did the 
same with the furniture of his church. For the above facts, 
see the Biblical Repository, October No., 1835, art. Roman 
Slavery. 

With these facts before our minds, can we for a moment 
suppose that Christianity gives any tolerance to slavery, or 
that the Apostles tolerated it in their communion? And oh ! 
what a rebuke is here given to those ministers, and all follow- 
ers of that self-sacrificing Jesus, who enslave their fellow 
beings, and live upon the gains of unrequited toil. And, in 
view of the preceding truths and above facts, let us never 
say again that- Christianity tolerates slavery, lest "the stone 
cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the the limber wit- 
ness against us." Aye, lest the long sepulchred dead rise 
from their tombs, and rebuke us for our impiety. 



CHAPTER Vm. 

SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. 

Slavery, as we have shown, is not sanctioned, nor eveii 
tolerated by the Bible. Nor is it a thing indifferent; but pos- 
itively it is sin, a great sin against God and man. 'J'his 
position it is important to make clear, and enforce. It is the 
great turning point in the Anti-Slavery controversy. "Every 
thing," said W. E. Channing, " is then conceded wliich 
Abolitionists need require, when it is granted that slavehold- 
ing is in itself a crime." * This is what we now propose to 
show. And this work is the more important from the fact, 
that we never believe aright, feel aright, nor act aright, on any 
subject of moral reform until the magnitude of the evil or sin 
is clearly set before our minds. And one grand reason why 
we in the South do so little for the abolition of slavery is, our 
perceptions of its evils and sinfulness are but feeble, Though 
facts stand thick around us showing our losses, and sins climb 
mountain high showing our danger, yet our attention has not 
been properly turned to them.t 

Against God slavery is a sin, because 1. It is a usurpation 
of his authority — an invasion of his rights. At the creation 
God gave to man authority, or government, over the fisli of 
the sea, the birds of the air, and the beasts of the field, but 
authority over man he reserved to himself. And God now 
requires that man's powers of body and mind shall be conse- 
crated to his glory. That he "shall love his God with all his 
soul, with all his mind, and with all his strength;" — "do all 
for the glory of God." This he cannot do when his limbs, 
his body, are govered by another, — his time wholly engrossed 

* Princeton Repertory, vol. 8, pa. 277. 

•[The channels of lij^ht and moral reform have been to its shut up. Most 
of our Southern presses have been worse than eilent; selecting not the 
good and that which might have been to us beneficial and timely, but 
selecting the errors of a few eccentric minds, have branded the whole anti- 
slavery movement with opprobrium, ar.d prejudiced our minds against 
even an investigation, or search for truth and duty. 



SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. l2> 

by another, — his mind shrouded in ignorance, and his energies 
crushed by subjugation. God says to the slave, ''Go, preach 
my Gospel to every creature." Slavery says he shall not; 
he shall labor for man and not for God. God says to the 
slave, Go, spend this hour at the house of God in prayer and 
praise. Slavery says he shall not; he shall go and toil in 
the field for hi i master. God says concerning those united 
in holy wedlock, "What I have joined together let no man 
put asunder." Slavery says they shall go where and as the 
will of the master or his debts shall demand. God says ;o 
the wife, "Be obedient to your husband." Slavery says she 
shall not, but be obedient to those who are not her husband. 
God says to children, "Be obedient to your parents." Slavery 
says they shall not, but be obedient to those who are not their 
parents. God says to the parent, "Train Up jour child in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord." Slavery says it shall 
go where, when, and as the debts,*or will of the master shall 
choose; even where the parent shall not look upon it. 

But does some one attempt to evade this monstrous impiety 
by saying, " these are the abuses of slavery, and no one 
has a right thus to intervene God" ? We answer: these are 
not the abuses, but some of the very elements that compose 
the slavery of the land. Slavery is not a mere obligation to 
perform service for another, as we have shown; but it is a 
relation in which one innocent man bif law, is made the prop- 
erty of another, subject to the liabililics oi property. Slavery 
is a creature of law, and regulated by law. Hence, at the 
death of every master, or during the lifetime of debtors, by 
the authority of the law, the husband is torn from the wife, 
the wife fron^l the husband, the parent from the child, the 
(ihild from its parent, the christian from tlie appropriate ser- 
vice of his God. All this may be done without the master's 
wish or consent; and all these atrocities may be committed, 
not by the authority of unkind masters, but in consequence of 
one of the very elements of slavery, — the properly, the chat- 
tel principle in man; and by authority of the law — the law 
of its existence. But, do you say as Dr. Fuller, "the master 
may have this power, but it is not right for him to exercise it." 

Then, we answer: 1st. If it be not right for him to exercise 
it, then it is not right for him to covet it, nor us to bestow it. 
And, 2dly, as we have just shown, these abuses may result, 
not from unkind exercise of the master's power, but from the 
law of the land, which makes the silave subject to the liaKili- 



128 SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. 

ties of property. But, do you say, pass a law forbidding 
these abuses? Then we answer: the moment you pass such 
a law you pass an abolition act — you hurl a death blow at 
olavery. For, 1st., no man will buy a slave under such re- 
strictions. He will not buy when he is compelled to keep 
them, whatever may be the character or number of his slaves. 
Here then would be an end of the matter. And, 2d., not 
only would the master cease to buy, but the slave himself 
would become free: for the moment you pass a law forbidding 
the master to invade the religious rights of the slave, to allow 
him to worship his God where, Wi.en, and as he may deem 
it his duty, that moment he becomes free; for no man will 
stay under such a law, where even his religious rights may 
be controlled — usurped by another. Slavery, then, is a usur- 
pation of God's claims, of God's authority. It cannot exist 
without giving to the master this power; nor can the master 
perpetuate slavery without the exercise of this power. The 
non- slaveholder who, by his silent consent, by his vote, and 
by his musket, protects the slaveholder in this usurpation, is a 
participant in the sin; 

n. Slavery is a usurpation of man's rights. That man, 
as man, has rights, — rights variously termed natural, inalien- 
able, inherent, or absolute, is a truth which has been conceded 
and acted upon by the large mass of mankind, from creation's 
dawn to the present time. The law of God proclaims the 
same truth, when it declares, that God will be a "swift witness 
against those who turn aside the stranger from his rights." — 
"To turn aside the rights of a man before the face of the Most 
High, * * the Lord approvelh not." "Woe unto them 
that decree unrighteous decrees, * * to turn aside the 
needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the 
poor of my people." The second table of the decalogue 
proclaims the same truth, and speci6es what these rights are. 
The sixth commandment teaches the rights of personal own- 
ership, and personal security. The eighth command teaches 
the right of property. The ninth the right of character. — 
The tenth sums up all rights and forbids their invasion. And 
remember the moral law teaches our duty to man as man; to 
the whole human family. Note, also, the moral law, like the 
civil law, was given, not to invest rights, but to protect rights 
already possessed* — rights natural to man as man. Man, 

* .lee chapter V. pa. 70, 74. 



SLAVERY SINFUL I\ ITSELJf. llil 

then, is the possessor of righls, and to violate them is sin. 

Wc now show how slavery violates these rights. 

1. It takes away from man the right of personal owner- 
ship. The fundamental truth, that man owns himself, so faf 
as man's claims are concerned, is taught by the light of nature, 
the laws of civilized nations, and the word of God. The 
very fact that God has given to man eyes to sre, is evidence 
that God wills that man should use them. The very fact 
that God has given him a body with a variety of members, 
is evidence that God wills that he should use it, and that he 
has a right to do so. And this right imposes on all others the 
obligation to leave him in the innocent exercise of this right; 
for rights and duties ars correlative terms: one ahvays implies 
the other. 

The laws of civilized nations declare the same truth. 
Blackstone says, "Those rights which God and nature have 
established, and are therefore called natural, such as life and - 
liberty, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy, 
unless the owner himself shall commit some act that amounts 
to a forfeiture." By these natural or absolute rights, he says, 
'•we mean those which are so in their strict and primary 
sense; such as would belong to their persons in a state of 
nature, and which every max is entitled to enjoy, ivhether 
in society or out of it''' " Liberty," he says, " is a right 
inherent in us by birth." In our declaration of Indepen- 
dence, "the political faiih of the nation," we have declared 
that "all men by nature are created equal," (that is, so far as 
natural rights are concerned, not as to condition,) "that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable right?, 
that among these are life, /i6er/y and the pursuit of happiness.'* 
These self-evident truths necessarily pre-suppose that man 
owns himself, for no man can have liberty without owning 
himself. 

The word of God pre-supposes the sanae truth, in imposing 
on man the duties of employing the energies of his body and 
mind for God's glory and for the welfare of his wife, his 
children, his fellow man. These duties he cannot perform, 
unless, so far as the claims of man are concerned, he owns 
himself. The eighth commandment pre-supposes that man 
owns himself, in guarding his right of property, which right 
he cannot have, unless he owns himself. As we showed in 
chapter fifth, the moral law was given, not to invest rights, but 
to protect rights already given — rights which belong to n'ar 
Q 



i30 SLAVERV SI.NFt'L IX iTSELFi 

in a state of nature. That man owns hinisclf — has a right 
to personal ownership in a state of nature (that is prior to 
coming into organized society,) is a point which no man will 
deny. Yet the law of God says, thou shall not so much as 
even covet this right — "Thou shalt not covet any thing that is 
thy neighbor's." Again, the word of God teaches that man 
as man owns himself when it forbids man-stealing. "He that 
stealeth a man and selleth him; or if he be found in his hands, 
he shall surely be put to deatli." Exod. 21: 16. Here it 
is taught that man owns himself, and to deprive him of self, 
of personal ownership, of liberty, is a sin, which under the 
Mosaic law, was punished by death. As we have shown, 
page 118, the Aposde Paul places the robbery of personal 
ownership with the worst of crimes. We, as a nation, have 
proclaimed the same truth to the world, in condemning kid- 
napping and piracy as criminal offences. Our Government 
has pronounced the slave trade on the ocean to be piracy, and 
punishable with death. Why this, but that man owns him- 
self, and it is a crime, a great crime, to deprive him of this 
righ . Now if a man on the coast of Africa owns himself* 
as we thus admit, then neither the violent seizure by the kid- 
napper, nor his transportation across the ocean deprives him 
of personal ownership. Nor does the fact that 1 transfer to 
the kidnapper a certain amount of money for him, deprive 
him of personal ownership: for the claim of the kidnapper 
being invalid, — void — the transfer must be the same. 

Nor can tlie laws or resolutions of a band of his fellow 
men on this side of the ocean, lawfully deprive him of per- 
sonal ownership, any more than the laws of Pharaoh could 
make it right for the Hebrew mid-wives to destroy the male 
children, or that the Israelites should be deprived of their 
liberty. Human governments have no right to deprive an 
unoffending man ol his liberty or right to personal ownership* 
Human laws "derive their just powers from the consent of 
the governed,''^ and are made for "the protection of rights," 
— not for the robbery of the riglits of an innocent man* Such 
is the voice of our Declaration of Independence. Blackstone 
after stating tliat all men have absolute rights, such as "life 
and liberty," says: "The primary object of law is to main' 
tain and regulate these rights" — not to rob man of them. 
Ho says further, "no human legislature has power to abridge 
or destroy thcni, unless the owner himself shall commit some 
act that amourits to a rorfeiiuve.'' Concerning things which. 



SLAVERY SIMFL IN" ITSELF. 131 

are naturally and intrinsically wrong — (naturally man own? 
himself — has liberty: — to take this away is a violation of 
nature) such as "murder, perjury, theft," (and the robbery of 
liberty is the worst of theft,) he says "municipal law has no 
force or operation at all." That is, things naturally and in- 
trinsically wrong, human Isws have no power to make them 
right by saying they may be practiced. No human legisla- 
ture then, has a right to make an unoflending man a slave, 
any more than they have to take the life of an innocent man. 
And such laws are impious before God, unjust to man, and 
as we showed, (pa. 74, 75) gross absurdities, and therefore 
(the best legal authorities being judge, as seen above,) nul and 
void from the beginning. 

Nor can any person be born a slave. AVe have declared to 
the world, in our Declaration of Independence, that "all men 
are created equal;" (that is, so far as natural rights are con- 
cerned,) "and have an inalienable right to life, liberly and tlie 
pursuit of happiness." Then no man may be born a slave, 
any more than you or I, dear reader; or your child, or my 
child. Two years before our Declaration of Independence 
John Wesley said: "It cannot be that either war, or contract, 
can give any man such a power in another as he has in his 
sheep and oxen. Much less is it possible that any child of 
man should ever be born a slave. Liberty is the right of 
every human creature; as soon as he breathes the vital air; 
and no human laws can deprive him of that right, which 
he derives Jrom the law of nature.'''' And reader, were it 
your case, or that of your child, you would soon understand 
whether human governments have a right to cause that yon, 
and yours should be born slaves. There is then, no just 
ground on which personal ownership may be withheld from 
an adult man who is sane and not a criminal. To deprive of 
personal ownership, or to enslave, is robbery of the worst 
form that we can inflict upon man. This position I will make 
clear by an illustration, Not long since, I was conversing 
with an elder in the Presbyterian church, and who has lived 
here in Kentucky, in the midst of slavery, until he has be- 
come a gray-headed man. He remarked that he was like Dr. 
Rice and Dr. Junkin: he thought that the wrong of slavery 
consisted in its abuse, in the unkind treatment of slaves, and 
not in the thing itself. I requested the privilege of asking a 
few questions; which he granted. Said I, if I were to meet 
yon on the highway, and take your liorse from yon, would 



132 SI^AVEP.Y SINFUL IN ITSELr. 

you not deem the act sinful? "Yes," was his reply. But, 
eaid I, were I to leave you the owner of yourself, could you 
not, by industry and economy, soon get enough to buy another 
horse? "Yes," was the reply. And could 3'ou not also ad- 
minister to the comfort of your family, and still worship your 
Gol as you might choose? "Yes," was again his reply. But, 
said I, if, instead of taking your horse, I had taken you, and 
made you a slave, and thus deprived you of your liberty, and 
the very right to possess, would I not have done you a great&r 
wrong? "Yes," said he. Well, then, is not slavery worse 
than stealing the horse? "Y'es," was again the reply. 
Liberty, personal ownership, is more dear to man than the 
possession of the world. Give me liberty, or give me death, 
was the motto of our forefathers. Slavery, then, in itself — 
in its essential element, aside from its abuses, is sin: sin of 
awful and fearful magnitude. 

Mr. W, E. Channing of Boston dissents from this view. 
In an article ibr the Princeton Repertory for 1636, he says: 
" The grand mistake, as we apprehend, of those who maintain 
that slaveholding is in itself a crime, is, that they do not dis- 
criminate between slaveholding in itself considered, and its 
accessories at any particular time or place." By these acces- 
sories, he means, as he specifies, "laws forbidding the instruc- 
tion of slaves"; which interfere with the marital or parental 
riglUs; which subject them to the insilts and oppression of 
the whites" — these, he says, we may admit to be in the 
highest degree unjust, without at ail admitting that slavehold- 
ing is itself a crime. Slavery may exist without any one of 
these concomitants." This last assertion is not admitted. 
Si)eaking concerning those ".who denounce slavery," he 533-6: 
" They have a confused idea of chains and whips, of degra- 
dation and misery, of ignorance and vice, and to this complex 
conception they apply the name slavery," (not so: our idea 
of slavery consists chiefly in the robbery of personal owner- 
ship — of liberty) "and denounce it as the aggregate of all 
moral and physical evih" Now to all this we reply, 

1. We have as certainly seen "ignorance and vice, degra- 
dation and misery," as our friend, llie Bostonian. We have 
seen too, "chains and whips" — yea, whips stained with human 
gore; and with it, we have heard the slave-groans ! And 
painful as is this to the heart of Piiilanthropy, we can look 
beyond this, or all these, and distinguish between these and 
tii.e mere robbery of personal ownership — of liberty: and 



SLAVERY SINFUr. IN' ITSELF. 133 

firmly believe, and effectually prove, that this latter, is in itselt' 
a great crime. Were we to ask Mr. W. E. Channing (not 
Dr. Channing, the distinguished opponent of slavery) which 
is the greatest sin, — to rob him of his library and his 
horse, or to make a slave of him — rob him of personal own- 
ership — of his liberty, even though he was placed in the hand 
of what is called a "kind master," what would be his reply? 
He would say (unless he differs from all men.) take my library, 
my horse, my house — all that I have; but let me he a free 
BiAN ! — let me be free to minister to my wife, my chi'd, where, 
and when I choose. — Let me be free to worship my God 
tvhere, and when I choose — to -'rob me of liberty, is itself a 
crime." 

2. Mr. Channingwill find it exceedingly difficult — so diffi- 
cult that he cannot separate slavery from what he calls its 
"accessories." Whenever he passes a law allowing the slave to 
worship his God and take care of hi; family — have "his marital 
rights" where, and when he chooses, so soon Mr. C banning 
will have destroyed slavery; for the slave, be assured, will no 
longer worship under the "vine and fig tree" of slavery, but 
under the olive of peace, and the wide spread shade of liberty: 
— in other words, in a free State, among some plain Quakers, 
who will respect his rights, his liberty, and encourage his 
manhood. But laws forbidding the slave to worship his God 
where, when, and as he chooses, — to take care of his family 
where, and as he may deem it best and duty, are essential 
to the very existence of slavery. We think Mr. Channing has 
been trying to make a distinction where there is no difference. 

Again, Mr Channing tries to evade this point by saying all 
men forfeit more or less of their natural rights in coming into 
society, or organized governments. He admits that slavery 
is a condition in which man "is deprived of his personal lib- 
erty, and made to labor for another" — "That this condition 
involves the loss of many of the rights commonly and prop- 
erly called natural, because belonging to men as men, is readily 
admitted. It is, however, incumbent on those who maintain 
that slavery is, on this account, necessarily sinful, to show 
that it is criminal under all circumstances" (he should have 
said, in the case of all those not criminals) "to deprive any set 
of men of a portion" (he should have said all) "of their natural 
rights." This broad position, he says, cannot be maintained. 
"For," says he, "the very constitution of society supposes- 
the forfeiture of a greater or less amount of those rights, 



}3'1 SLAVERV SINFl'L IX ITSELF. 

according to its peculiar organization/' To ihis we reply, 

1. Mr. Channing has the great misfortune to differ from 
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and 
that long list of good men and sound minds, who signed the 
Declaration, and there declared it to be a self-evident truth, 
that all men have certain inalienable rights, such as life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these 
rights governments are formed. Then these Revolutionary- 
Fathers being judges, society or governments are formed for 
the protection of our natural rights, not their "forfeiture," 
We come into society to have our natural rights more perfectly 
protected; and whenever society or governments take these 
away, as we have shown above, (and Mr. Channing himself 
being judge) it does that which is sinful, unless we as crimin- 
als, have murdered the peace of society. 

Mr. Channing next refers to Patriarchal Governments, and 
Monarchies, affirming that they, with their arbitrary power, 
may exist without sin, if the state of society demands tliem. 
Admitted; because they may exist without depriving man of 
any of his natural rights. But whenever they take fron^ au 
unoffending man (as is the case with the slave) his natural 
rights, they commit sin; because they violate nature, and the 
law of God, as we have seen. 

Again, he refers to women and minors, as deprived of cer- 
tain political rights; and infers that it is "not enough to prove 
the sinfulness of slaveholding, to show that it interferes with 
the natural rights of a portion of the community." Now 
when Mr. Channing talks about women being deprived of cer- 
tain rights, without sin, and therefore, the slave may be 
deprived of natural rights without sin, it is manifest, 

1. That he confounds political, with natural rights. Black- 
stone discriminates. Natural riglits are such as right to per- 
sonal ownership — right to personal security — right to proceeds 
of our labor — right to worship Gop where, \vheti, and as wc 
please. — Such r.s a man has in a state of nature. When he 
consents to become a member of society, on him may be coiv 
ferred certain political rights, such as voting &c. This is 
couventioiial, and may be bestowed or withheld, as the well- 
being of society may demand. The possession of this is not 
essential to man's well-being, his duty to God and to his fel- 
low man. But the possession of man's aaUiril, rights is, and 
to withhold them is tlierefore sinful. 



SLAVERY SINFUL LN ITSELl'. 135 

2. Mr. (-^lianiiing's arguineiit to be worth any thing, sup- 
poses the condition of the shive to be like the condition of the 
woman, or person deprived of certain political rights. Here 
is an awful chasm, and we wonder that he could have leaped 
it, I, and Mr. C banning too, if he is a minister of the Gos- 
pel, suffer the privation of certain poliiical rights, yet our 
condition is far from being that of a slave. My wife, and Mr. 
Channing's (if he has one^ and I hope he has, and a good one 
too) sufft^rs the privation of certain political privileges, yet 
their condition is far from being that of a slave. Again he says: 
"As it is acknowledged" (not acknowledged by all) "that the 
slaves may be justly deprived of political rights, on the ground 
of their incompetency to exercise them without injury to the 
community, it must be admitted^ by parity of reason, that they 
may be justly deprived of personal freedom, if incompetent 
to exercise it with safety to society." To this we reply 

1. If Mr. Channing's child, or the women of our country 
are not fitted to exercise the elective franchise, or if it is best 
for society that they should not, it does not follow that they 
may be held as slaves. So, if it were even admitted that the 
slaves of our country may be deprived of the elective fran- 
chise, — of political rights, it does not follow, that by parity of 
reason, they may be deprived of all their natural rights, or 
enslaved: for 

2. Facts prove that they are not "incompetent to exercise 
personal freedom with safety to society." In the last forty- 
two years there have been between fifty and sixty cases of 
emancipation; and all have worked belter than in a state of 
slavery. Every free State of our Republic is a demonstration 
of the same truths 

To his reference to Parental authority over minors, we 
reply: The parental relation is right because it is necessary 
and appointed of God. But slavery is not necessary, nor is 
it a thing appointed by God. The right of control of the 
father over the son during the years of minority, arises from 
the father's obligation to provide for, and train aright that 
child. — But so soon as the son attains to the years of man- 
hood so soon does the fatlier's obligation cease, and with it 
his authority over the son. — But over another man — the 
slave, there is no such obligation to train him, and provide for 
him or his child; and by consequence no such claim td 
service or obedience as over the master's own child during 
the years of minority. 



ll5iB SLAVERY SiMlL I.N ITSElSf . 

Again, he says the condition of the slave results "from tlie 
form of society. In England one man is born a Peer, another 
a Peasant: and so in America, one is born a freeman and 
another is born a slave. We reply: One man in England 
may be born a peasant, and though he may not have (and ail 
men cannot have) the privileges and responsibilities of a Peer, 
yet he enjoys all of his natural rights — those rights essential 
to his well being, his duly to his God and his fellow men. But 
when one in America is born a slave, he is deprived of those 
natural rights — those rights essential to his well-being, his 
duty to his God, and his fellow men. And the society that 
commits such robbery, does that which is impious towards God, 
and unjust to man. And we believe every man who sanc- 
tions such a state of society, won't use the moral and political 
means which his honest and enlightened judgment shall decide 
to be necessary for the change of that society, is a participant 
in other men's sins. 

Lastly, Mr. C banning, to evade the point that the robbery 
of personal ownership is sin, says: 'Slavery is obligation to 
perform service for another, with power to transfer this claim 
of service to anotlier; and that this is analagous in principle 
to the transfer of subjects from one government to another; 
as of Louisiana from France to the United States.' To this 
we reply, 

1. His definition of slavery is not correct; as we showed 
in our first chapter. Slavery is not mere obligation to perform 
service for another. My child is under obligation to render 
me service, but it is not therefore a slave; and I have no right 
to treat it as one. 

2. There is no "analogy" between the condition of a slave, 
and that of the citizens of Louisiana. Every man knows 
that they were not the property of any man, or set of men 
— that they were not held to involuntary service — were free 
to stay, or remove — were free subjects of a free province. 
And thus we believe that nearly the whole of that argument 
in the Princeton Repertory, is based as we believe, upon false 
positions,* and we have referred to it, thus often and extend- 
edly, because it has been retailed and reiterated so long and so 
extensively through the South, that it has become the stereo- 
typed argument of almost every apologist for slavery. But 

* We doubt not but that they were honestly made; but to us they 
seem palpably erroneous. ^' 



SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF. 13t 

after all, when the battery of logic is exhausted, and criticism 
drained of her lore, men will still say, when it conies to their 
case, "Give nie liberty, or give me death" — lake my horse* 
my house, my farm — all; but let me own myself. To take 
this "is a crime in itself." 

2. Slavery is sinful because it takes from man his right to 
serve God as he chooses — as hi3 judgment and conscience 
shall dictate. This right to man is the most sacred of all 
others; because its invasion affects his immortal interests — 
his destiny in the spirit-world. Robbery of temporal rights 
can follow the poor man no farther than the grave; but robbery 
ol religious interests, will be felt through the cycles of eternity: 
— the saved, their cup of salvation will be small — the lost, 
their souls the prey of lust, their anguish will be eternal. 
Hence Holy Writ records no miracles so replete with disap- 
probation, as lh:)se wrought in defence of this right to worship 
God as we choose. The deliverance of the three Hebrews 
from the fiery furnace, of Daniel from the lions' den, the 
Exodus of tlie children of Israel — 'the waters that becama 
stagnant pools of blood, the boils and blains on man and beast, 
the streets and highways piled up with things of loathsomo 
form, the fire and hail that played in dread confusion in their 
pathway, the kneading- troughs, the chambers and couches 
wreaking with dissolving nature, the death-groans of the first- 
born, and above all that stretched out arm that overthrew 
Pharaoh and his hosts and stranded them like wrecks upon 
the billows of the sea', are so many mori.l monuments of 
God's displeasure of religious tyranny, and decision that 
each man has a rig' it to worship God where, and as he 
chooses. 

So thought our forefathers when they forsook their friends 
and property, the homes of their youth and graves of thejjr 
fathers, periled the dangers of the ocean and blasts of winterj 
that they might plant in the unbroken wilderness, temples 
which should be a resting place to every soul, and institutions 
securing religious liberty to njen of every land. And Oh ! is 
it true that in this land dedicated to religious freedom, there 
are three millions of innocent, unoffending beings (fettered by 
the vote cf christians,) so that they can worship only as the 
judgment or caprice of raasters, long accustomed to usur- 
pation, may dictate? Js it true that the toil-worn slave, and 
christian pilgrim cannot have the privilege of cheering his 
burdened soul bv mingling his voice, and his prayers at the 
R 



igg SLAVERY SIXFUL T\ ITSILF. 

house, and wiih the people of his choice? Do we not only 
burden the body of the poor unoffending man, but then fetter 
the aspirations ot the soul — tramel his immortal interests — 
maim the spirit for all coming time? Was ever robbery more 
complete, despotism more galling, and acts more sacrilegious? 
Is not this siuful? And if we persist in our oppression, shall 
we expect to avert the wrath of Him who has said: "Thou 
shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: if thou afflict 
them in any wise and they cry at all unto me, I will surely 
hear their cry; and my w rath shall wax hot, and I will kill you 
with the sword; and vour wives st all be widows and your 
children shall be fatherless." O leader, let us run to and fro 
through the land, calling upon onr brethren to turn from tlieir 
evil doings — rush to the sanctuary, tear from the altar the mon- 
ster of oppression, that we may avert the swift judgment of 
God Almighty. The world too, is waking to freedom. Borne 
on every breeze that crosses the Atlantic, comes the sweet 
tones of a universal jubilee. Sliall trans-Atlantic States be- 
come our exemplars, — Popes and Musslemen our teachers? 
Shall we, who were first to raise the banner of liberty, be 
last to sway the sceptre of despotism? Ye sons of the fair 
South, let us, with all those of every Slate, who are lovers of 
that which is right, generous, and noble, purify the sanctuary 
from all oppression, — rally to the ballot box, tear down that 
fustian flag from our capital, which waves a falsehood to every 
breeze, and hoist in its stead one that in truth and verity, will 
proclaim to the wide world, — man is free — made so by the 
genius of universal emancipation. 

3. Slavery takes from man the right of personal security. 

Personal security is also classed among the natuial rights of 
man: "for the protection of which," says our Declaration of 
Independence, "Governments are instituted among men; deri- 
ving their just powers from the consent of the governed: that 
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these 
ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it." 

The law of God also forbids the invasion of this right. The 
sixth commandment forbids that injury should be offered to the 
person of man, 

A rule of interpretation, as recognized both in civil and divine 
law is, that whcMi any precept forbids the highest crime of any 
class of wrongs, it forbids all smaller ones of the same class. 
So when the sixth command forbids us to kill the body of our 
fellow man. it also forbids all other violezices that may be offered 
to his person. 



SLAVliRY .SINFUL IN ITSELF. 13y 

But slavery says it shall be lawful to violate both the I'uiida- 
mental principle of the civil law, and the plain teachings of 
revealed law. 

If the slave shall leave the master's premises and go to an- 
other for the purpose of worshipping God, or some duty 
to his family, slavery makes it lawful that he may be 
severely punished. If he persist in duty, or resist ollered 
violence, without any attempt to injure the person inflicting 
punishment, he may be beaten to bloodshed. Ths civil law 
has cut the sinews of industry, economy, and virtue, by taking 
away character, and a recompense for labor; it has placed the 
whip in the hands of the master, and subjected the poor slave 
to all the torture that wanton caprice, brutal lust, or malignant 
spite may inflict. And, said the Synod of Kentucky, "if we 
€<3uld calculate the amount of woe endured by ill-treated slaves, 
it would overwhelm every compassionate heart, — it would 
move even the obdurate to sympatiiy." 

And though the physical condition of the slave may be 
comparatively good, yet who among us would be willing to 
have his body liable to such inflictions; — under the control of 
s.ome petty overseer, paid in proportion as he can extort labor 
and subjection from the poor slave ; or under a master with 
irresponsible power. O, my dear readers, those of us who 
may be husbands, or parents, let us for a moment imagine 
what would be the anguish oi our souls if we were compelled 
to stand by and see the cowhide applied to the tender flesh 
of the wife of our bosom, or the child of our body. Who, 
oh ! who, that has the feelings of a man, could look upon such 
a sight? Were it your case, dear reader, overruled, as is the 
poor slave, by superior numbers and cruel laws, all that you 
could do would be to wipe from your eyes the tear of sor- 
row, and hide within your bosom that anguish of soul that 
knows no equal this side the grave. And though their bodies 
were spared, and were wliat is termed "well clothed and well 
fed," still, could you bear to see thera driven like beasts of 
burden to unrequited toil? 

Every stroke of the slave is extorted by fear; for no mau 
will, as a slave, (oil without recompense, only from fear of 
punishment. And has it come to this, tliat in liberty boasting 
America, tiiree millions of our fellow beings are driven, under 
lash, like beasts, to toil for the ease, the wealth, the pride of 
others? Was ever despotism so complete, and so degrading? 
And must this be the condition of man, who was made a little 



140 SLAVERY SINFUL L\ ITSKLF. 

lower than the angels? Forbid it humanity, forbid it Heaven! 
Truly may we say in the language of Holy Writ, "Judgment 
is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar otf; for 
truth is fallen in the streets and equity cannot enter. And the 
Lord saw it, and it displeased hini that there was no judg- 
ment." Nor may we, either as slaveholders, or non-slave- 
holders say, I have not done it: "For if thou forbear to 
DELIVER them that are drawn to death, and those that are 
ready to be slain; if thou sayest, Behold we knew it not; 
dolh not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that 
keepeth thy soul, dolh lie not know it? and shall he not ren- 
der to every man according to his works?" No man can do 
duty and be silent. The God of his being, and final destiny, 
demands aciion at his hands, 

4. Slavery takes from man the right to acquire and hold 
property. 

Every man has by nature a right to the products of his 
own labor. Whatever value 1 create by my own labor, or 
by the innocent use of the other means which God has givea 
me, is mine. So says Wayland. 'I'his, indeetl, is the true 
ground on whicli all men originally acquire a right to prop- 
erty. The fruits of the tree, the tiuiber of the forest, the fish 
of the sea, the ground we cultivate, survey, or enclose, becomes 
ours by labor bestowed. So plain is this truth, that the large 
mass of the human family have acted upon it for more than 
five thousand years. The defence of this right, was the 
ground of the American Revolution. "The objeiuion which 
the fathers of the revoknion had to being taxed by a Parlia- 
ment in which they were not represented, was, thaiParliament 
on this basis, was empowered to swell their taxes, so as to 
draw 'rom the people ail their earnings, save a bare subsis- 
tence, and to go even below this, into their needful bread. 
This, said the revolutionists, destroys in us the right of get- 
ting and holding property.''^ This was a right on which 
depended the welfare of themselves, their families, and their 
country: a right so dear, so valuable, that for it they were 
willing to peril their lives, and shed their hearts' blood. And 
shall we, their descendants, who annually celebrate their vir- 
tues, and laud their patriotic deeds, be guilty of a system of 
oppression, a thousand fold m ire grievous than British Parlia- 
ments ever heaped upon Ameiican colonies I 

The Bible teaches the same great truth: that man has a 
light to the proceeds of his own labor. The ground on which 



SLAVfiUV SINFUL IN ITSELl". ill 

Abraham claimed the well, usurped by the servants of Abim* 
elech, was, that he, Abraham, had digged the well. Gen. 21: 
25-30. Hu had a right to his ovvn labor, and that produced 
by his labor. This is a clear and a strong case, li is very 
pertinent. The eighth and tenth commands forbid that one 
man shall take the property, the goods prodnced by the 
labor of another. It is a sin to do it. And if one man has 
not a right to the proceeds of another man's labor, much less 
has he a right to the labor itself. "Labor, the basis of the 
right of properly, cannot be the subject of property." — 
Lock. Furtlier and stronger; the Bible pronounces an awful 
curse upon those who rob their fellow men of their labor, or 
withhold from them the reward due to them for their labor. 
"Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, 
and his chambers by wrong ; that useth his neighbor's 

SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR HIS WORK. 

Jer. 32: 13. Slavery then is sin, — sinful in itself. Every 
essential element of it is sinful. It is a robbery of man's 
right to serve God as he chooses — of his right to personal 
ownership — of his right to personal security — of his right to 
acquire, hold and disburse property. It is a complicaiion of 
sins; and it was in view of the privation of these many rights, 
that Wesley styled it, "the sum of all villanies," It is in view 
of this robbery of man's natural rights that we decide that 
slavery is always and in all cases sinful. Some try to dis- 
prove this by saying, a man may buy a slave for the purpose 
of freeing him : this cannot be sin, — therefore slavery is not 
in all cases sinful. To this we reply: 

1. The man enters upon the relation of master to a slave, 
not because slavery is a good thing, but that he may destroy 
a wrong thing. 

?. The existence or relation of slavery does not depend 
alone upon the intentions of the master. Tiie law holds the 
bought man as the property of the purchaser, subject to all 
the liabilities of property. Should the master be in debt, the 
law seizes the bought man immediately, and sells him for the 
master's debts into interminable bondage. Or, on the other 
hand, should the master die before he had time to get a decree 
of court for the slave's emancipation, the slave is given by 
law to unfeeling heirs. The law in holding the slave thus, 
deprives him of personal ownership, — of personal security, 
of right to proceeds of his labor, of right to worship his God 
where and when he chooses, of the right to the wife of hia 



142 SLAVlillY SIM'UL IX ITSELF. 

bosom and the child of his body. Now the law in creating 
and perpetuating such a relation, creates and perpetuates one 
which is sinful as long as it exists. The master's intentions 
may have been good and he may have desired the relation to 
cease, and the bought man to be free the moment after he 
bought the Slave. "^But the law holds that man as property — 
robbed of his natural rights until the master can obtain a decree 
of Court and lodge m the office a deed of emancipation. As 
long as the law (ontjnues the relation, it continues one which 
is in itself sinful. Slavery then may be finful but the master 
may have been innocent in his intentions. 

3. Such a master is not, strictly speaking, a slaveholder, 
but only a redeemer. He does not hold the bought man — he 
does not wish to do so for a single moment. The law is the 
slaveholder. Slavery then, whether continued by the law or 
the master is always sinful because, it is tlie robbery of man's 
dearest rights — the right to possess — the right to be a man 
and act as a man. Never was despotism more galling. Even 
the Pasha of Egypt, though he claims the lands on which his 
subjects live, and a large part of what they raise, yet he leaves 
them the owners of themselves, their wives, their children, 
their household stuff, and a part of what they raise; but 
slavery takes all. Other despots leave a part, but slavehold- 
ers take all. It is worse than highway robbery. The robber, 
so he get my property, is willing to leave me the owner of 
my wife, my child, and myself, that I may acquire more, but 
slavery takes all. And tell me not that this monster sin, this 
complication of wrongs, is sanctioned or even tolerated by 
the Bible. Has God given us a long list of commands guard- 
ino- man's every right, and then sanctioned this monster 
which, at one fell blow, robs man of all rights? It cannot 
be. 

And if those of us who are non-slaveholders stand silent 
bi/, wink a/, and with our vote sustain this cruel system, we 
are participants in the slave's robbery, and the nation's ruin. 
If I should push a man into tlie stream and you should run 
down and deliberately hold his head under until yOM should 
witness the last death gasp, would you not be equally guilty? 
Remember this. It was very forcible to my mind the first 
time I heard it. Reader let us now covenant that we will not 
again vote in a way that will encourage, or even tolerate 
slavery or slaveholding. I, for one, will lose my vote before 
I will give it to perpetuate what I now believe to be one of 



SLAVERY aiNFUL IN ITSELf. 113 

the worst evils morally, aiul politically, in our nation. Banks 
and Tarifls are notliing in comparison willi slavery. And just 
so soon as (he political par'ies see that there is a balance of 
power, however small, in any county or Slate wliicli will not 
vote so as to sanction slavery, then they will put oiU candi- 
dates who are not slaveholders, or at least those who practically 
as well as theoretically go for liberty principles, 'j hen the 
work, will be done. The plan is simple, easy, and certain. 
Facts have already proved it. Reader, let us not hold the 
head of the poor man under any longer. 

EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. 

We now specify some of those evils which grow out of 
slavery, and are always connected with slavery. And here 
let me state an admitted truth: // is always sinful for us to 
practice or sanrlinn by our voice or vote, a practice which of 
itself necessarily brings evil upon our felloiu men, the church 
of Christ, and our country. If the practice even occasion 
others to do wrong, and is not essential, we should abandon 
it, Paul says, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will 
eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I makeiny brother 
to offend^ "It is good not to eat flesli, nor to drink wine, 
nor ANY THING wheroby thy brother stumbteth, or is offended, 
or is MADE WEAK." And that all pretext for false logic may 
be removed, we would note specially, that we do not say that 
those things, (such as the parental and marriage relations,) 
which are in themselves right, good, and essential, should be 
put away because they may be, and are abused; but those 
things which are not essential, not good, and always occasion 
or directly produce evil, such it is sinful for us to practi' e or 
sanction: it is a violation of the law of love. "And to him 
that knoweth (o do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." 

I. Slavery is an evil to the slave; because, 

1. It removes from the slave some of the strongest motives 
to virtue, and the greatest restraints from vice. 

God has placed in man a love of approbation, a desire for 
family preferment, a sense of character, a desire for property, 
a thirst for knowledge. These are the natural incentives to 
industry and virtue, and are surpassed in their invigorating 
and healthful tendencies only by the motives of the gospel. 
They are the springs to action, and the "salt that saves from 
corruption." But slavery takes these away, and leaves him 
exposed to the baser passions of his cornipt nature. Nat 



144 EVILS CONNECTED Wixk SLAVERY. 

being able to possess any thing, he has no motive to industry 
but °ie lash. It is nol ihen surprising that he is sloihful, 
negligent, siupiil. Who would not be so under such circum- 
sla'iices; wiili his mind shrouded in ignorance, his energies 
cruslied by subjugation, and his app lite beastializcd wuh 
sensuality? W ovi d not the while man be so, were he kept in 
this condition lor cenairie-? Having no opportunities of rising 
to respectability in society, knowledge, skill and virtue are 
considerod by him of but little utility. Hence so little effort 
to secure or possess them. Having no character to lose, either 
for himself or his family, he has but little to restrain him 
from the commission of vice or crime when temptations 
come. To evade chastisement for want of industry, economy, 
or virtue, he becomes a liar, which is notorious, 'i'o gratify 
the desire for property, and to iiave a little pocket money to 
get small articles for himself and family, he becomes a ihief. 
Or if unwilling to get these articles in this way, having his 
time occupied during the week in the service of his master, 
he becomes a Sabbath-breaker, by employing that day in 
making and selling his brooms, trays, &c. 'I'his he would 
not do but to procure money to buy little articles for himself 
and children. It makes him in heart a murderer, in haling 
the man who robs him of his rights, or oppresses iiim. Does 
not slavery sink" the slave into the greatest depths of moral 
degradation? Surely we may say it is worse for his soul 
than for his body. And can any man love his neighbor as 
himself, and wilfully practice the system, or even silently 
consent to it, and tolerate it in he land, so long as he has a 
mouth to speak, means to employ, or a vote to decree? 

2. Slavery violates the marriage relation, occasions the 
slave to disregard it, and practice the consequent vice, con* 
cubinage. Slavery, as we have noticed before, is a creature 
of law; hence, whether the master wishes to separate the 
slave from his companion or not, if he should die, or get in 
debt, either by extravagance or by becoming security, the taw 
seizes his slaves, sunders husband and wile, east, west, north 
or south — wherever it can get the highest bidder.* Thus does 

* Tlie following picture, from the Christian Advocate and Journal 
(Methodist), is only one of the thousand daily occurrences in every 
slave btale. "At Wilmington, North Carolina, as I went on board the 
steamboat I noticed eight colored men, hand-cuffed and chained together 
in pairs, lour women, and eight or ten cliiidren, of the apparent ages of 



EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERV. HS 

law, sustained by christians, violate one of God's plainest 
commends: "Wiiat God has joined together, let no man put 
asunder," Do you say, pass a law preventing the sale of 
the slave; then you destroy one of the esseniial elements of 
slavery, the chattel principle; and do what we ask, abolish 
slavery. Just take away ihe barbarous law that makes man 
the property of his fallow man, and thus violates the law of 
God, and we have no more of slavery. 

Wq said also, it causes the slave to disregard the relation 



from four to ten years, all standing together in the bow of the boat, in 
charge of a man standing near them. Of the men, one wai sixty, one 
was tifty-two, three of them about thirty, two of them about twenty -five, 
and one about twenty years of age. as 1 subsequently learned from them. 
The two first had children, the next three had wives and children, and 
the other three were single, but had parents living from them. Coming 
near them, I perceived they were all greatly agitated; and, on inquiring, 
I found that they were all slaves, who had been born and raised in North 
Carolina, and had just been sold to a speculator who was now talcing them 
to Charleston market. Upon the shore there was a number of colored 
persons, women and children, waiting the departure of the boat; and my 
atteniion was particularly attracted by two colored females of uncom- 
monly respectable appearance, neatly attired, who stood together, a litte 
distance from the crovvd, and upon whose countenance was depicted the 
keenest sorrow. As the last bed was tolling, i saw the tears gushing 
from their eyes, and they raised their neat cotcon aprons and wiped their 
faces under the cutting anguish of severed affection. They were the 
wives of two ot' the men m chains. Tliere, too, were mothers and 
sisters, weeping at the departure of their sons and brothers; and there, 
too, were fathers, talcing the last look of their wives and children. IMy 
whole attention was directed to those on the shore, as they seemed to 
stand in solemn, submissive silence, occasionally giving utterance to the 
intensity of their feelings by a sigh or a stifled groan. As tlie boat ^vas 
loosed from her moorings, they cast a distressed, lingering look towards 
those on board, and turned away in silence, .v.y eye now turned to 
those on the boat; and although I had tried to control my feelings amidst 
my sympathies for those on shore, I could conceal them no longer, and 
I found myself literally -weeping with those that weep." I stood neax 
the-n, and when one of the husbands saw his wife upon the shore wa^"* 
her hand for the last time, in token of her atftctien, his manly efforts to 
restrain his feelings gave way, and tixing his watery eyes upon her, he 
exclaimed, 'This is the most distressing thing of ail! My dear wile 
and children, farewell ! ' The husband of the other wife stood weeping 
in silence, and with his manacled hands raised to his face, as he looked 
upon her for the last time. Of the poor women on boar ■ , three oi them 
bad husbands whom they left behind. One of them had three children, 
another had two, and the third had none. These husbands and fathers 
were among the throng upon the shore, witnessing the departure of their 
S 



i4(J EnLS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERr, 

of marriage, and practice the consequent vice, concubinage. 
In our land, marriage, as a civil ordinance, they ck) »ot enjoy. 
Our laws do not recognize this relation amongst tiiem; nor 
defend it, or enforce its duties. This would interfere with 
%he claims and interests of the master. Henee, to use the 
language of the slave, they "take up with oue a^notlier." And 
this° continues as long as their own convenience, and that of 
the master, requires: either of which may sunder a relation, 
sacred in the eyes of God, and prolific in good to man. It is 

■wives and cHIdren. and as tliey took their leave of them they were sitting 
together upon the floor of the boat, sobbing in silence, but giving utterance 
to°no complaint. But the distressing scene was not yet ended. Passing 
down the Cape Fe.u- river twenty-fn e miles, we touched at the little village' 
of Smithport, on the south side of the river. It was at this place that one 
of these slaves lived, and here was his wife and fi\ 8 children; and while 
at work on ^Monday last his purchaser took him away Irom his family, 
carried him in chains to Wilmington, where he had since remained in. 
iail. As we approached the wharf, a flood of tears gushed trom his eyes, 
and anguish seemed to have pierced his heart. The boat stopped but a 
moment, and as she left, he bid I'arewell to some of hisacqua-ntance whom 
he saw upon the shore', e:cclaiming, 'Boys, I wish you wellj tell 3Iolly 
(meaning his wife)and the children I wish them well, and hope God wiB 
bless them.' At that moment he espied his wile on the stoop of a house 
some rods from the shore, and with one hand which was not in the 
Aand-cuffs, he pulled ofl' his old hat, and waving it toward her, exclaimed, 
'Farewell!' As he saw by the waving of her apron that she iccoguized 
him, he leaned back upon the railing, and with a faltering voice repeated, 
'Farewell; forever.' After a moment's silence, conflicting passions 
seemeil to tear open his heart, and he exclaimed, ' What have I done that 
I should suffer this doom? Oh, my wife and children, I want to live no 
longer!' and then the big tear rolled down his cheek, which he wiped 
away with tlie pairs o( his unchained hand, looked once more at the 
mother of his five children, and the turnnigof the boatliid her face from 
him for ever. As I looked around I saw that mine was not the only 
heart that had been a.Tected by the scene, but that the tears standing in 
the eyes of many of my l^llow-passengers bore testimony to the influence 
of human sympathy; and I could, as an American citizen, standing within 
the limits of one of the old thirteen States, but repeat the language of 
Mr. Jefferson, in relation to the general subject, 'I tremble when I think ' 
that God is just.' " — Quoted by Barnes. And now dear reader, it is more 
than probable that your silence in the church, and vote at the ballot 
box has sanctioned, yea. directly decreed the cruel law that thus sunders 
the dearest ties on earth, and the plainest command of God. And here 
we complain, not of tattered garments, of lacerated bodies, or of starved 
and emaciated frames, but of this rnuider of affections; this crushing of 
^e heart's dearest solace of eirthly treasure? given: of this. Oh! of this 
-A^e do complaiui. 



EVILS COXSECTED \VITU SLAVERY. 117 

the great preservalive against the abhorrent vices of concubin- 
age and adultery. It is the origin of those strong ties which 
cement and bind together society. It is the fountain of the 
dearest earthly pleasures that man enjoys — domestic bliss, 
Whhout it the endearing relations of husband and wife, parent 
and child, would be unknown. Without it man and woman 
would wander forth, selfish, shameless, and unrestrained, like 
one vast herd of brutes. And yet the very tendency of our 
system of slavery is to abolish it. Christians! yea, all lovers 
of virtue aud order!! what would you think, and how would 
you act, did these evils exist to ihe same extent with the 
whites? And are they any the less ruinous to society, and 
any the less criminal in the sight of God in the black man 
than in the white man? How many there are in our midst 
who are parents, and yet know no one that they can call 
husband, or wife ! And how many even of those in whose 
veins courses much of the blood of the white man, who know 
not their parents ! Oh ! is it true there is a single woman in 
the whole south, who is opposed to the abolition of slavery, 
when they remember how many bosoms have been wrung 
with anguish at the reflection that the husbands of their choice, 
and sons of their body have been unfaithful, in cases that 
never would have occurred had it not been for slavery? And 
I will ask one more question. Is there in our State, even 
amongst christians, as much regard for the purity of the 
marriage relation of tlieir slaves, and the proper descent of 
slave children, as there is to have the best stock of sheep, 
hogs, cattle, to say nothing of horses? May God pardon our 
shameful neglect of a relation which he has so carefully 
guarded. 

3. Slavery keeps the slave in hopeless ignorance. 

Most persons are agreed that this ignorance is necessary in 
order to the continued existence, or perpetuity of slavery. 
Whether this be true or not, we know as a matter of fact, 
that the large mass of our slaves are deplorably ignorant. — 
And we know that in some States the law positively forbids 
their instruction, and in all others many masters are opposed 
to their instruction, lest they should read something which 
will show them their rights, and make them discontented. — ^ 
And almost all consent to, and by their vote decree, that such 
shall be the condition of the poor unoffending slave. But 
should we seal up the mind, and shut the door of knowledge 
to the inraortal spirit, lest the slave should see his wrongs? 



148 EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. 

Would we feel ihnt we are justifiable in cutting off the hand, 
or foot, in order to prevent liim from escaping from forced 
and unwilling servitude? Every feeling of our nature forbids 
it. Humanity forbids it, God forbids it. And is it any the 
less criminal to clog, to maim the mind, the soul, than the 
body? " If by our practice, our silence, or our sloth, we 
perpetuate a system which paralyzes our hands when we 
attempt to convey to them the bread of life and which 
inevitably consigns the great mass of them to unending 
perdition, can we be guiltless in the sight of Him who hath 
made us stewards of his grace?" This is sinful. Said the 
Saviour: "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away 
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them 
that were entermg in ye hindered." Luke 11: 52. 

n. Slavery is a great evil to the master and his family. 
For reasons which we have stated in this chapter, the slaves 
are often slothful, negligent and wasteful. The control and 
management of such, is often wearisome, and perplexing to 
a perilous degree. They only know its evils who iry it. lu 
view of them we have often thought of the words of Solo- 
mon : "Better is a little with the fear of the Lord, than great 
treasure, and trouble therewith." "Better is a dinner of 
herbs v/here love is, than a stalled ox, and hatred therewith." 
Prov. 15: 16, 17. 

Also, the power entrusted to masters, is to a great degree 
irresponsible. The history of man shows that such power 
may not be often exercised by him, without injury to his own 
soul, and to others. Under such circumstances, the master 
and mistress are more than human nature generally is, if they 
do not find irritability, fretfulness, habits of scolding, pride, 
contempt, selfishness, hard-heartedness, and other evils 
constantly grov/ing upon them. Says Jefferson, "the whole 
commer(re between master and slave is a perpetual exercise 
of the most boisterous passions, the most unrelenting despotism 
on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our 
children see this and learn to imitate it. For man is an imita- 
tive animal. This quality is the germ of all edi cation in him. 
From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he 
sees others do. If a parent c(»uld find no motive, either in his 
philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance 
of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient 
one that his child is present; but generally, it is not sufficient. 
The parent storm?, the child looks on, catches the lineaments 



E>aLS COSNKCtED WITH SLAVERY. 14S 

of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, 
gives a loose to tlie worst of passions, and, thus nursed, 
educated, aud daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be 
stamped by it with odious peculiarilies. Tiie man must be 
a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undcpraved 
by such circumstances." Truly, slavery is evil, and only evil 
continually. 

Further, the children of slaveholders are frequently ex- 
empted from that labor which is necessary to give proper 
development to the constitution, or health to tlie body: conse- 
vuendy, they often are weak, effeminate, and sicklv. Go into 
slaveholding districts, and see the efFeminacv of our females; 
and then to the public burying grounds and behold the multitude 
of infant graves planted by sickly mothers, and yon will be 
ready to cry out, Egypt's destroying angel is already in our 
land. Also, the habits acquired under such circumstances are 
often unfriendly to either the acquisition of knowledge, or of 
property. Hence, as pohtical economists teach us, neither 
this, nor any other nation can long be prosperous where one 
part are not producers in any sphere, but consumers of other 
men's toil. And hence, from this and other fruits of slavery, 
those States where slavery has long been in existence, are on 
the decline. As this part of the subject belongs to statesmen 
and journalists, I will hasten to notice another fact. 

III. Slavery is an evil to the church. 

1. It keeps in our State two hundred thousand, and in the 
whole South three millions of slaves in total inability to read 
God's word. It is impossible that a people so ignorant shall 
ever be efficieni or useful Christians. They have neither the 
knowledge or means to become such. The large mass of 
them receive no instruction, (that is, in spelling or reading,) 
even in a Sabbath school. In alnost every place in the 
South, where there is not positive law forbidding theirinstruc- 
tion, public sentiment amounts to a prohibition equally efTec- 
ttve. But do you ask: "do ihey not receive oral instruction?" 
I answer, yes; of its kind — some good truths mingled with 
what we believe is revoltii>g error — that the God of the Bible 
is a respector of persons in sanctioning oppression — the rob- 
bery of the slave's natural rights. Some go to the same 
church where their masters worship. These are the iew, 
who, overcoming all the neglect and indifference shown them, 
press into the '■'■negro-pew,"'' (if not taken up by whites on 
special occasions,) or into the little galleries cut off of the far 



150 EVILS COXXF.CTED WITH SLAVERY, 

end. Others go to hear preachers of their own color, who 
are often scarcely able to read a sentence of God's holy word, 
much less able to explain it. In some places white preachers 
preach to them directly. Notwithstanding these huulrances 
many of the slaves have become Christians, exhibiting many 
of the essential principles of Christianity, kindness, brotherly 
love, humility, meekness, devotion. And under equally favora- 
ble circumstances I believe the negroes would be the most 
religious race of beings in the world. But every man knows 
that" the efficiency of the church depends, in a great degree, 
upon the amount of christian intelligence in its members. But 
when so many are unable to read even the word of God, how 
can the churcli be efficiant. 

2. Slavery keeps many of the whites in ignorance; and 
thus prevents the gospel from being effective, as it would 
o'herwise be withlhein. The children of the large slave- 
holders being raised in what is called high life, when educated, 
must be sent to "high schools" in cities or towns. The 
laborers of the slaveholder, being slaves, they are not educa- 
ted. Hence the slaveholder feels little or no interest in sus- 
taining a neighborhood school. The tendencies of slavery 
being to monopolies of land, and to the exclusion of school 
going children (that is, while children,) the other portion of 
the neighborhood who are not able to send their children 
away to extravagant and fashionable boarding schools, and 
not being able to make a school within convenient distance, 
nor to defray the expenses of one themselves, their children 
have to do with little or no education. 

Also, slaveholders often form or accumulate monopolies of 
land and property. These men (for reasons before assigned, 
and not desiring that tlieir laborers should be educated,) are 
often unwillling that their property should be taxed for general 
education. Hence the free school system never has flourished 
in the slave States, and as a consequence, the children of the 
poor man has to do without instruction. And hence, we 
have in Kentucky 45,000 white persons, over 20 years of 
age! who cannot read or write; and 200,000 slaves in the same 
deplorable condition: giving us in Kentucky, about eight perr 
sons over the age of 20, who cannot read or write, to one in 
Ohio'* in the same amount of population. In the whole of 
the slaveholding States we have 300,000 white persons, over 
the age of 20 who cannot read or write, and more than three 
millions of colored people in the same condition. Many of 



KVILS tONNKCTED WITH SLAVERY. 15 1 

those children who have the opportunities of acquiring an 
education, have never been accustomed to habits of industry 
and applicalion; and as a general rule, do no become thorough 
scholars, do not acquire more than fashion demands, or is 
necessary to fit for common business transactions. Hence, 
the author of a book, who is a native and resident of the 
Soilth, is a rare occurrence. And hence, we have but few 
men who enter the ministry, and have to import men from the 
free States to fill our pulpits, teach in our schools, our 
academies, and our colleges. 

Because the slaves are not allowed to be educated, and the 
white population is comparativaly sparse, Sabbath Schools are 
few and thiiilj' attended. Kence the very fountains of the 
church, of early piety, and of efficient Christianity, are dried 
up. Does not slavery affect, yea, deeply afTectjthe church? 

3. Slavery causes our churches to be few and feeble. In 
the days of the Apostle he said, "not many mighty, not 
many noble were called." So now, those whose minds are 
inflated with a "little brief authority," whose natural pride is 
pampered with the accumlated fruits of unrequited toil, and 
despised caste, — whose consciences are seared by repeated 
acts of injustice and oppression, — whose wills are made 
more stubborn by a life of continued dominatien; — compara- 
tively few such persons receive a meek and self-denying 
gospel. The pride cultivated, is hostile to the true spirit of 
the Gospel. 

The slaves are mere nominal members. They have no 
voice in the affairs of the Church, truth, or gospel spread. — 
Further, they have no means to encourage or sustain the 
ministration of the gospel. Here exist impossibilities to 
a successful and efficient gospel. Further, slavery makes 
our population sparse, by shutting out the artist, the mechanic, 
the manufacturer, the free laborer. The history of the gos- 
pel teaches us that it is with these industrious and virtuous 
classes, that the gospel makes the greatest progress. These 
indisputable facts existing, it is impossible that our churches 
should be either as numerous or efficient as they would be, 
did slavery not exist among us. 

4. Slavery dries up the fountains of true benevolent enter- 
prise. The master, or man, who is taught to regard one por- 
tion of the human family as chattels, the mere subject of bis' 

* See the census of 18 lU. 



153 EVILS CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY. 

interests and pleasure, will not generally feel for mail as inetU 
nor ol'ten feel a spirit of true benevolencei Hence, Massa- 
chusetts alone, is computed as giving more to the cause of 
foreign missions (and perhaps to the general cause of benevo- 
lence,) than the whole South. The donations here given, 
are generally either for neighborhood concerns, or lor party 
movements. Even our home missions have to be sustained 
by the donotions of free States. 

5. Slavery corrupts the Gospel. 

The Bible teaches us that to love God with all the heart, 
and our neighbor as ourselves, is the sum of all religion: — 
"This is the law and the prophets." See Matt, 22: 37-40, 
Luke 10: 27. "This is more than all burnt otfertngs and 
sacrifices." Mark 12: 33. These passages teach that there 
is no true religion without love to God, and to man "as our- 
selves." Without this, all else is hollow formality. We 
may ^'tithe mint, and annis, and cummin,'''' yet Jesus will 
say, "Ye have omitted the loeighlier matters of the law, 
Justice, Mercy, and Truth." And again, "Go learn what 
this meaneth, I v/ill have mercy and not sacrifice." "He 
that loveth not, knoweth not God." Now no man, as we 
believe, with a correct knowledge of the nature of slavery, 
can love his neighbor as himself, do justice and mercy, and 
at the same time, wiUingly enslave his fellow man — his neigh- 
bor. Yet the teaching and practice of slavery is, that man 
is an article of merchandise, — his interests for time and eter- 
nity may be \vholly overlooked, in promoting that of the 
master: that the master with certain professions and ceremo- 
nies, may live in the worst form of oppression and yet be a 
christian. "Now as whatever gives us wrong notions con 
cerning God, prevents us from feeling ind acting towards him 
aright, so whatever gives us wrong notions concerning our 
fellow man, prevents us from feeling and acting towards him 
aright. This being done, all the virtues growing out of the 
observance of the second table of the law, wliich is love to 
man, will soon die." — Pres. Blanchard. Not only this, 
slavery leads to a violation of the first table of the law. For 
"he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can 
he love God whom he hath not seen." 1 John 4: 20 and 21. 
"And he that fa leth in one point is guilty of the whole law." 
Tluis slavery destroys the very heart of true religion. Like 
a loathsome leech, it absorbs her lil'e's blood, and leaves her 
a pale, cold and lifeless corpse — a ghastly skeleton— a frame 
^vithout a heart to beat, or lungs to breathe. 



fiVlLS CONNECTEl) WITH SLAVERY. 163 

Lastly, slavery banishes the gospel from tlie land where it 
is. A brollier, who is a minister of the gospel, and the aiulior 
of a work deservedly popular, writing to me from one of the 
slaveholding towns of our State, says : "Slavery has driven 
from our State to free States many of our coiiscientions and 
best ministers." And, said he, "often have I determined that 
I would go myself, but have been hindered as yet." This 
they done, because in conscience they thought they ought to 
speak against slavery. But the hearts of the people bein^ 
often tilled with prejudice by slavery, and their minds blinded 
by supposed interest, these ministers could not be sustained. 
Further, and m ire especially, for reasons previously assigned, 
they saw that neither the English school, nor Sabbath school, 
nor the church, coidd be long healthfully prosperous. For 
these and like reasons, many of our best ministers, as we 
know, have been driven from our State. 

This is not all; those men and ministers who are slave- 
holders, or are apologists for slavery, and who occupy posts 
of influence, biassed by slavery, employ their means and 
influence to shut out those, who from love to God and man, 
would preach a whole gospel; and they introduce those who 
will not urge upon the people their whole duty to man as 
man, — who will cry peace, peace, when there is no peace— 
who will preach about the externals of religion, but not tha 
essential principle — the sum of the law and the prophets, 
love to God supreme, and our neighbor as ourselves. See 
Luke 10: 27. May we not then say, that Slavery is the 
Hydra with a hundred heads and a thousand stings? The 
deadly Upas that infuses death into all that comes beneath it« 
shade, or inhales its odors? But, says one, grant that slavery 
is sin in itself, and sinful from the evils that necessarily and 
invariably flow from it; still, what shall we do? Where is 
the remedy? We answer, emancipation. But when and 
where? This we will answer in our n^xt. 



CHAPTER IX. 

REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

Slavery, as we have shown, is a sin against God, and agairtsi 
man. The remedy is emancipation. In this, as in every 
other sin, we must abandon it. If it be asked, when? Then 
we answer as Way land did: "When is it our duty to obey 
God," or cease sinning? To tins there can be but one answer; 
and that is, immediately. No man who desires the favor of 
his Gud, dare do otherwise. "A reason that would be suffi- 
cient for delaying to obey God for a moment, would be a suffi- 
cient reason for disobeying hira forever." Said Judge Reid 
(who 18 the present Judge of oar district,*) "When you are 
convinced that slavery is the greatest political evil," (even 
political evil) "whether sinfal against high Heaven or not,- set 
YOURS free, let others do as they will." ***** 
"You will gain some credit by proving your faith by yOur 
works. But to be talking about going with the North" (that 
is, for emancipation) "without moving a step towards accom- 
plishing it, — you cannot even deceive the negroes themselves." 
All men, like Judge Reid, know that whenever we see a thing 
to be sinful, or even '■Hhe greatest political evil" we ought 
to repent of it immediately, and "bring forth fruits meet for 
repentance." Why, dear reader, if adultery, and theft, and 
counterfeiting, were as publicly and extensively practiced, 
both in the Church and out of the Church, as slavery is, 
z^hat would you think of a man who would preach the gradual 
abolition of such vices, — pleading that some have no other 
way to get their living — that the hands of some are loo tender 
to work — and others are too old to work — and many have 
rei!eived these sins from their fathers, or friends, by will and 
inheritance; — and above all, here is the law of the land, (made 

* See Jiulee Reid's charge to the grand jury of Mnsor. County, Ky 
delivered on the first day of the No\ember term of ihe Circuit Court 
of 1845. 

I wish the Judge was as sound on the moral character of slavery a» 

ii/: i> on the m^\^ of emmcipBtion. 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 16$ 

by men of like passions with ourselves;) it sanctions these 
practices as right; and with all these considered, I think we 
might continue in vhese practices for a while any how." You 
would deem such an one as worthy only of tlie execrations of 
man, and the direct vengeance of Ahiiighty God. But do you 
object, and say it is not self, it is not interest that keeps me 
from emancipating mine immediately; I am looking at the 
good of the slave, and society. 

First, be sure you are really honest with yourself in saying 
so: for we have known men, when their objections were 
shown to be false, and their difficuliies removed, and they 
pressed to do duty, who have obstinately rKJused to quit their 
sin, and like the young man who came to the Saviour inquiring 
duty, and went away sorrowing because he had possessions, 
Matt. 19: 22. It was self, it was covetousness, that hindered 
and deceived him. 

Second, you are not left to the priviles;e of saying, it will 
be better to quit sin gradually; for God Almighty, your Judge, 
requires immediate repentance for all sin. But let us ex- 
amine your objection. You say they are not fit for freedom, 
and it would be better for them, and society, not to have it 
now. If they are unfit for freedom, then, we ask, what has 
kept them from not being fit for freedom as other men? Your 
only answer is, slavery. Now if slavery unfits them for 
freedom, when will they become fit for freedom, whilst you 
keep them in slavery? Will you plead their unfitness for 
freedom as a reason why you may continue in sin, and yet 
continue to practice the very thing you say unfits them for 
freedom? You are, my dear reader, according to your own 
showing, cliargeable with double guilt. You not only rob the 
slave of his liberty, but practice that upon him which you 
say unfits him for liberty. If you say they should not enjoy 
freedom because they are not educated, then on the same 
ground you may enslave three hundred thousand white men 
in the South, who are not educated — who are over twenty 
years of age and cannot read or write. The best way to fit 
men for freedom, and make them safe for society, is, to give 
them their liberty and treat them as men, and not as beasts. 
This position we will support with good reasons and facts. 
When you give a man his liberty, and treat him as a man, 
you immediately invest him with a character — a character 
dear to him as life; a character which he will sustain, prompted 
by the principle of love of approbation, implanted in his na- 



1§0 REMEDY FOR TUB EVIL. 

ture. If you reward him for his labor, he will have another 
incentive to industry, virtue and economy. If you respect 
all his rijrhls, then he will liave need of, and a desire for 
knowledge and virtue, lie will make etfcu-ts to obtain them. 
To treat aiaji thus, is l!ie most natural and elT.'ctive way to 
fli him for the datic;s of a freeman. Facts proviufr it. Take 
as an' example the emancipations given in the West India 
Islands. ^ There slavery existed lor many long years; and, as 
it always has been, it became a great evil to the master and 
the slave. The people and the government became convinced 
of it, and determined to emancipate. Two of the Islands 
emancipated immediately,* the rest adopted a gradual system 
— an apprenticeship system of six years. After the lapse of 
two years, finding that those who had emancipated immedi- 
ately, both master and former slaves, were doing infinitely 
better than they who were gradually ceasing to do evil, the 
rest wall one accord, emancipated on the soil eight hundred 
thousand slaves. Thrilling was the scene on one of the 
Islands. "When the hour of twelve approached, the mis- 
sionary proposed that they should kneel down and take the 
boon of freedom in silence. Accordingly, as the loud bell 
tolled its first note, the crowded assembly prostrated them- 
Belves on their knees. All was silent, save the quivering, 
half stifled breath of the struggling spirit. The slow notes 
of the clock fell upon the multitude, peal on peal, peal on 
peal rolled over the prostrated throng in tones of angels' 
voices, thrilling among the desolate chords and weary heart- 
strings. Scarcely had the clock sounded its last note, when 
the lightning flashed vividly around, and a loud peal of thunder 
roared along the sky — God's pillar of fire, and his trump of 
jubilee. A moment of profound sdence passed — then came 
the burst — they broke forth in prayers, they shouted, they 
sang glory, hallelujah; they clapped their hands, leaped up, 
fell down, clasped each other in theirfree arms, laughed, cried, 
went to and fro tossing up their unfettered hands. 4.bove all, 
in broken dialect, was heard the utterings of gratitude to God." 
Yes, withgratitnde to God. There was no (Jcmger of insur- 
rection then. The feelings of revenge were all lost in the 
ocean of love that filled the soul. Filled with gratitude to 
their masters and friends for the precious boon of libeity, 
insurrection was the last thought that could come into their 

•August iFt, 1831. 



REMEDY FOR THE Eyt, 15T 

minds. And so would it be in Kentucky, if the shackles 
were stru<^k oft' of every slave on to-raorrow morning. If I 
do a man an act of kindness, I reasonably expect tlial he in 
return, will be kind to me. To talk otherwise, is to talk 
aijainsl reason, and well known facts. The Africans are not 
insensible to gratitude (or favors bestowed. Every man who 
knows any thing about them, knows that they are as proverbial 
for gratitude bestowed, as Frenchmen for urbanity, and socia- 
bility. They are submissive to government. So true is this 
that it was one of tlie considerations which prompted Las 
Casas to recommend to cardinal Ximenes, the introduction of 
the African into Hispaniola, instead of the Indian as laborers. 
It is notorious that they are humble and submissive above all 
men. So true is this, that some even plead this fact as a 
reason why they ought to be enslaved — saying, that God 
designed them to be slaves. Now will any man who expects 
to be credited, talk of insurrection and danger in view ot these 
well known facts? 

JN'Uv what we would infer to be true, is proved hy facts. 
We shall show that the pecuniary, physical, intellectual, and 
moral condition of both master and slave — white and black, 
— are infinitely improved by immediate emancipation. We 
shall adduce testimony of such a character as to leave no 
ground for doubt. 'JMie French Royal Commission, presided 
over by the Duke of Brogle, state: — "for eight years past 
emancipation has been proclaimed in the slave colonies of 
Great Britain. These colonies are nineteen in number, and 
contain eiglit hundred thousand negroes : * * under the 
influence of various climes,- and of social and political cir- 
cumstances so different, emancipation took place every where 
in 1834, and has continued since that time, peacefully and 
without violence. It may be said, without fear of contradic- 
tion, that an event so formidable at first sight as the summons 
of eight hundred thousand slaves to liberty, on the same day, 
at the same hour, has not caused in eight years, in all the 
EnsUsh colonies, the tenth part of the troubles that are 
ordinarily caused among- the m^st civilized nations of 
Europe, by the least political question that agitates, however 
little, the public mind." "Rapport fait au Ministre Secretarie 
d'etat de la Marine et des colonies." Quoted from an address 
sent by the committee of the British and Foreign Anti- 
Slavery Society, to those countries of Europe that possess 
lelave colonies. 



1j8 RKJJEPY rOR TIIE KYIt. 

The same committee state: "The English apprenticeship, 
which in its provisions appsart^d to oiTer belter guaranties for 
the protection of the semi-bondsman, than any code of slavery 
with which wears acquainted, mterly failed of securing tliose 
advantao-es which it promised, Reason and experience alike 
demonstrate, that no measure short of perfect freedom, and 
equal laws, can enable mm to protect himself against oppres- 
sion, and to secure his just interests." 

In the British House of Lords, November 23, 1837, Lord 
Brougham said of Antigua, (one of the Islands that emanci- 
pated immediately,) that "proijcrty in that Island had risen 
in value — exports of sugar had increased — offences of all sorts, 
from capital olfences tlownwards, had decreased, as appeared 
from returns sent to the Governor of the colony." The 
Govornor himself said: "The planters all concede that eman- 
cipation has been a great blessing, and he did not know of a 
sino-le individual who wanted to return to the old system." — 
See Six Month's Tour of Thorne and Kimba 1 in the West 
Indies. In the year 1837, Joseph Stnrge, Thomas Herve}', 
Dr. Lloyd, and John S<-oble of England, went to the West 
Indies fur the express purpose of examining into the condition 
of the emancipated slaves, and they state: "Our opportunities 
of personal observation were extensive. We had the priv- 
ilege of free communication with the most intelligent and 
influential persons in the colony. There is one subject upon 
which all are agreed — that the experiment of abolition has 
succeeded beyond the expectation of its most sanguine 
advocates. 

The measure has been felt to be one of emancipation of 
musters as well as of slaves. The average cost of cultiva- 
tion is believed to be one-fifih, or one sixth less ihan formerly, 
so that free labor is manifestly advantageous. Houses and 
lands have risen in value. Estates are now ivorth as much 
as they were formp.rly with their slaves attached to them" 
(so it would be in Kentucky were emancipation to take place 
—no pecuniary loss). "There has been an augmentation of 
the import trade of the Island," 

Testimony of twenty-four Wesleyan Missionaries. Assem- 
bled at St. Johns, Antigua, Feb. 7, 1837, tliey state: 

1. "The emancipation of the slaves of the West Indies, 
while it was an act of undoubted justice to that oppressed 
people, has operated most favorably in furthering the triumphs 
of the gospel among the negroes, * * and in its operations 



kEMEDY rOR THB EVIL. 139 

as a stimulous to proprietors and other influential gentlemen, 
to encourage religious education and tlie wide dissemination 
of the scriptures, as an incentive to indua'ry and good order. 

2. That while the above staiemenls are true with reference 
to all the Islands, even where the system of apprenticeship 
prevails, they are especially applicable to Antigua, where the 
results of the great measure of en/ire freedom, so humanely 
and jiidicioush/ graiiled by the Legislature, cannot be contem- 
plated vvithont the most devout thanksgiving to Almighty- 
God. " Here is the tes.imoiiy of the council of a disinteres- 
ted nation, — of the Governor of the Islanil, — of one of the 
first statesmen of Britain, — of travelers, — of resident planters, 
and of Missionaries, who travel from place to place, and mingle 
witli the people. They testify that emancipation on the soil, 
and immediate, has been a blessing to both master and slave, — 
that crime has diminished, — tiiat peace and order prevail, — 
that morals and religion are greatly improved, — that property- 
has arisen in value. — that cultivation is cheaper, — that pro- 
ducts are greater, — that morals and religion have been greatly- 
improved, — that man has been blessed, and God glorified. 
Pause a while, reader, until you fix these facfs in your mind. 
But does any one object and say they have had to import 
laborers into some of the Islands to cultivate the soil. We 
answer, 'lis true they have done so; and there are reasons 
for it — reasons which do not in the least militate against 
emancipation. 

1. The women now being wives, and with their husbands, 
fhe owners of houses and property, are employed in their 
families with domestic cares, as they should be, and as God 
desi<Tned them. By consequence, the number of field hands 
are duninished. But suppose there is a demand for more 
laborers, l>y the women being in their aipropriate place: 'J'hen 

(1,) There will be employment for some good, honest, free 
laborer, who will come if the employer will give a fair com- 
pensation and treat him aright. Labor, like trade, will go 
where there is a demand and proper treatment. 

(2,) It is belter for the master to do right to his God — his 
fellow-man — his country, and suflTer, for the present, some 
momentary inconvenience, — some loss of expensive hands, — 
tiian to sin against his God, wrong his fellow-man, and injure 
the markets, trade, and general prosperity of his country. 
F.irther, if the mister has any claim? to philanthropy, he 
should consider that those wives, husbands, and children, 



1(30 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

have interests, rights, and conveniences, which should be 
reo-arded as well as his own. In the scale of humanity, and 
of^christianity, the convenience, the interest, the rights of one 
man and his family, are as great and as heavy as those of any 
other. The rights of man, the good of a countiy, and the 
glory of God, should never be sacrificed to a little momentary 
covetousness of the few. 

Second reason why some Islands have had to import labor- 
ers. Some of the men who were emancipated have bought 
small parcels of land, and the cultivation of this, with the 
improvement of houses, &c., occupy much, and in some cases, 
all of their time. Some, also, have gone lo trades. This 
division of labor, this variety of trades and employments, 
whilst it diminishes the number of laborers of large proprie- 
tors, of aristocracies, and monopolies, is nevertheless, promo- 
tive of the general good of most individuals, and national 
prosperity. Though the above classes have been called away 
from being field hand^, still there is no necessity for the impor- 
tation of foreign laborers. There are laborers enough there 
if Government and proprietors will do their duty; as may be 
seen from these facts. The freeman now performs nearly 
double the labor he did in a stale of slavery. The mode of 
cultivating the soil has been greatly improved. The plough 
and hoe, instead of the hoe alone, have been introduced, togeth- 
er with other improvements, since emancipation took place. 
These greaUy facilitate labor. If Government and proprietors 
would do tlieir duty, tliere would be no need for the importation 
of laborers, or complaint of the condition of the emancipated. 
This leads us to notice the 

Third reason why laborers have been imported. There 
are men there, as in other places, prompted too much by 
covetousness. The Govcrnraeni, instigated by such persons, 
passed an Ejectment act, by which any laborer miglit be 
turned out of the house of proprietors in a week's notice. 
Thi?, and the promotion of virtue, made it best that they 
should seek a home for themselves and their families. When 
they went to buying and building, a heavy tax was taken ofT of 
cug'ar-factories, and placed upon all tides to lands that might 
be bought, however small. On the materials with which they 
would want to build, was also placed a heavy duty — on some 
articles, such as shingles, twelve times as much as the planter 
was to pay for the same material, coming from the same 
country, but used for staves. The Government thought it 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 161 

best that the land should be chiefly employed in the produc- 
tion of sugar and rum. On this the laborer could not subsist, 
and had to be dependent upon foreign supplies for his bread- 
stufis — his meal, flour, and pork, or fish; on these, a heavy 
duty was placed. — On every barrel of pork, three dollars 
thirty-three cents. The taxes paid chiefly by the laborers, on 
these articles, amounted, in 1843, to 127,821/. 14s. 6d.; in 
1843, to 100,250/.; in 1844, to 192,517/. 12s. 7d. In 
addition to all this, they refused to give the laborer but one 
shilling per day for Iiis labor and the support of his family.* 
Was it any wonder that the laborer, under such unrighteous 
exactions, should refuse to labor for such men — flee to the 
mountains — construct houses to live in, and try to raise some- 
thing for him and his family to live upon? You, dear reader, 
would do the same. Nor is it at all surprising, if there should 
be want, and even suflering, among these laborers, as in other 
countries, where governments and proprietors are oppressive. 
These facts prepare us to answer another objection that is 
going the rounds in our Southern newspapers, and Northern 
apologists for despotism. It is, that there is now, in 1848, 
pecuniary embarrassment in these Islands; and emancipation 
was tlierefore a bad act? To tiiis we reply: 

1. Will you weigh humanity, liberty, the interest of the 
immortal mind with present dollars and cents? The very 
objection shows a low and sensual estimate of man and true 
excellence. 

2. This present distress is not attributable to emancipation, 
but to former bad management and late repeal of their tarifl". 
Nothing will perhaps put this in a clearer light than the words 
of the Editor of the National Era, March 23, 1848. They 
are as follows: — " The present distress of the West Indian 
planters is by no means unprecedented. Under the system 
of slavery, according to their own statements, the reports of 
committees and official documents, they were frequently on 
the verge of ruin, and their clamors for relief were as loud as 
they are now. In the year of 1829, the Standing Committee 
of West India Planters and Merchants, presented a scries of 
papers to the Government, designed to show the deplorable 
condition of the Colonies, and imploring aid to save them 
from ruin. Of Jamaica ihey say: 

■' See an address, delivered in London, beforf' the British and Foreign 
Anti-Slavery Society, by the Rev. W. Knibb. a Baptist Missionary in 
Jamaica for twentv-one year?. 

u 



162 REMEDY FOK THE EVIL. 

" 'For many years the distress of the planters of Jamaica 
has been acnumuhiting, until it has reached a crisis which 
threatens to involve all classes in ruin. Tlie planter is una- 
ble to raise money to provide for his family, or to feed and 
clothe his negroes; the mortgagee gets no inrerest on the 
capital he has advanced; and numerous annuitants in this 
couiitrv look for remittances in vain.^ — Par. Pop. A^o. 120 
— 1831, p. 9. 

"Precisely the state of things now existing, as described 
by the London Times 1 

"On the 28ih of May, 1830, (under the system of slavery) 
the Committee of West India Merchants presented amemorial 
to Government, in which they say thai 'many estates have 
not paid the expenses of their cultivation for the past year ;* 
'that tlie debt has been increased by the proprietors in conse- 
quence of the expenses exceeding the sale of the crop;^ that 
many other estates more favorably situated 'have not produced 
enough to pay the interest of the mortgages on them;' that 
the remainder of the estates still more favorably situated, have 
yielded so liide net income, that 'great distress ha-, fallen upon 
the families of proprietors;' that the result of the account of 
crops in 1830, 'will be more disastrous than that of the past 
year,' &c., &c. — and this extract was signed by twenty-six 
West India houses of the highest respectability. 

"A select committee was appointed by the House of Com- 
mons, February 7ih, 1831, to report on the subject; and the 
London Reporter pubhshes the testimony of numerous wit- 
nesses examined by that committee, demonstrating a state of 
extreme distress in all the Colonics. Merchants had refused 
to grant further advances. Many of the planters were reduced 
almost to the point of starvation. Doubts 'had arisen of the 
Colonies existing at all.' Every interest was prostrated. One 
proprietor said the distress could not be greater. In Antigua, 
Montserrat, the whole of the Leeward Islands, a universal 
bankruptcy was threatened, and it was apprehended that the 
negro population could not be provided for. The Council 
and assambly of St. Kits say, in their memorial, that the 
'struggle is not for restoration to that prosperity which once 
smiled upon them, but for bread,'' and they add — ^'Scarcely 
is an ancient name in possession of its patriinony: and 
those who have been driven to the possession of it, find it 
an incumbrance instead of pay7nent.' 



REMEDY FOR TJiE EVIL. lG:i 

"T!ie secretary of the Committee of West India Merchants 
said, that 'much the larger proportion of the estates was en- 
cumbered by debt or mortgages.' 

"Peter Rose, of Devereaux, said that this state of things 
existed, in that Island, before the conquest of 1803. 

"Under the system of slave labor, if we are to believe the 
testimo1\y of the planters and merchants of the Colonies, of 
their committees and agents, of their councils and assemblies, 
and of the select committees of the British Parliament, the 
Islands were on the very brink of ruin, at the extreme point 
of embarrassment and distress, threatened with universal 
bankruptcy, with no hope of relief but from the Imperial 
Government. Novv, if tlie present distress is to be attributed 
to Emancipation, which took place fifteen years ago, to what 
was to be attributed the distress of 1829 and 1830, and of the 
periodical crises anterior to those dates ? 

" How, then, are the existing embarrassments of the British 
West Indies to be explained? In the debates on the subject, 
in the British Parliament, and in the representation of the 
West Indian interest, the Emancipation Act is rarely referred 
to as the cause. The Committee of the Briiisli and Foreign 
An'i- Slavery Society charges it upon the abolition, in 1846, 
of the differential duties between tree and slave-grown sugars. 
The free-trade section of the Abolitioni-ts, dissenting from 
this view, assert that the colonies have been ruined by pro- 
tection — have so long been a'jcustomed to rely upon Govern- 
mental aid, that, being thrown upon their own resources by 
its partial withdrawal, they naturally enough fall into embar- 
rassments. The causes, we suppose, are manifold. We have 
already seen that, before Emancipation, the Islands were liable 
to great commercial revulsions, occurring periodically. This 
will be the case in every community where the credit system 
prevails, and especially in planting countries, where labor and 
capital being invested in the cultivation of one or two great 
staples, they are peculiarly exposed to loss and embarrass- 
ment, from a sudden Jail in prices. It was under this state 
of things that 'a large proportion' of the estates in the British 
West Indian Islands became encumbered v/ith debts or mort' 
gages. The Emancipation Act found them in this condition, 
and who could expect that it would relieve them from it? On 
the contrary, by entirely changing the relations of labor and 
capital, by altering the whole (ramework of society, it was 
calculated temporarily to increase the embarrassment. The 



\Gt REMEDY FOR THE EVlI,, 

wonder is, not that such a false state of thnigs should have 
resulted in this prevailing distress of 1847-'48, but that this 
result was not precipitated sooner. What else could be ex- 
pected? Encumbered as the properties were, a vast amount 
of cheap, protracted labor was required to produce enough to 
meet the demands upon them. But the Act of Emancipation 
left the peasantry at liberty to make their own bargains. 
Women and children worked before; but they were now, to 
a considerable extent, withdrawn jroni field labor. This 
was the first step towards the elevallon of the former, and the 
education of the latter. It was right, but its effects on sugar 
planting Was injurious. Again, the laborers had been com- 
pelled to work sixteen or eighteen hours before for a bare 
subsistence of the meanest kind. Now, they would devote 
only such a portion of their time to labor, and on such terms, 
as would yield them a comfortable sustenance. Were they 
to be blamed for this? Do not white laborers act in the same 
way? They did right. But the effects of these changes 
were, a diminution of labor on the estates, and an increased 
outlay by the proprietors. Consequendy, the sugar planting 
interest was injured ; the estates became more and more 
embarrassed. Were it possible to revolutionize the habits 
of a slavehoiding community suddenly, and make those just 
divested of their slaves, as ingenious, industrious, enterprising, 
economical, as ready at expedient?, and as well satisfied with 
moderate profits, as those who have never held slaves, even 
now the VVest Indian planters might have saved themselves. 
But instead of conforming themselves to the new state of 
things, and making the best of it, by conciliating the laborers, 
and taking an interest in their welfare, paying them fair 
wages, studying economy, and availing themselves of ma- 
chinery, they must have, first, a bonus of twenty millions 
sterling; next, regulations, designed to secure as much labor 
at as litde cost to them as possible, and with an entire disre- 
gard of the comfort of the laborers, whom they were apt to 
regard still as their property, of which they had been unjustly 
deprived; then, protection for their sugar in the British mar- 
ket, against all competition; and then, the importation of 
laborers from all quarters of the earth, so as to bring down 
tiie price of labor, and subject it to their control. In this 
Way, though they alienated t!ie native laboring population to 
a considerable extent, and really diminished the value of its 
labor, they continued to maintain themselves without any 



RKMEUY FOR THE EVIL. 105 

signal reverses till about two years since, when the protection 
which they had enjoyed in the British market against the 
slave-growa sugars of Cuba and Brazil was withdrawn, and 
they were liirovvn to a great extent upon their own resources. 
Then began to be developod the full consequences of a rotten 
system, which had been only delayed by the false policy of 
protection. Without enterprize or economy, with little capi- 
tal, no machinery, and no internal improvements, with estates 
encumbered by mortgages, and labor insulHcient, the native 
laborers having been alienated and repelled by harsh treat- 
ment and the competition of the brufal and stupid Coolies, 
the planters were suddenly subjected to competition with the 
sugar growers of Cuba, with their importation of Yankee 
enterprize and machinery, their eight luindred miles of rail- 
road, and their coerced laborers, working night and day under 
the. bloody lash, their ranks being tilled, as fast as they were 
thinned by this destructive system, from supplies from the 
coast of Africa. The result is before us. 

"The planters of the British West Indies are at least over- 
whelmed, and they must change their habits and entire system, 
before they can expect relief. The estates mnst pass from 
the hands of absentees into those of resident proprietors, who 
must begin de novo, without encumbrances upon them, with- 
out a reckless use of the credit system. Capital must be 
husbanded; industry and economy be practiced; machinery 
put in motion; and the laborers must be treated kindly and 
paid fairly." 

It cannot be that freedom is the cause of embarrassment. 
Look at the free Slates of our Union contrasted with the 
slave States. See facts gathered from the census of 1840 by 
the Editor of the Examiner, April 15, 1848. Agricultural 
products of 

All the South, 
Value of Cotton^ Rice, Sugar, 

Tobacco, for 

1839, $74,866,310. 

VALUE OF ARTICLES MANUFACTURED. 

Slave States, $42,178,184. | Free States, $197,658,040. 

ANNUAL EARNINGS. 

Slave States, $403,429,718. 

N. & S. Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama, Mississippi. Lou- 
isiana, $189,321,719. 



New York, 
Agricultural products of, for 
1839, $108,375,281. 



Free Stales, $658,705,108. 
New York, $193,806,432. 



166 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

CHILDREN AT SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, (fcc. 

Slave States, 301,172. | Free Stales, 2,212,444. 

What a contrast in wealth and intelligence, U^o things so 
essential to individual and national prosperity. Nothing but 
slavery causes the difference, for the south has better soil and 
better climate, and might have greater facilities of trade, an9 
in every way be in the advance, was it not for slavery. 

But, does some one say: "the people in our free States, 
where these causes do not exist, have trouble in procuring 
help?" To this we reply: 

1. They have not the trouble and inconvenience that we 
have, with our hunting, buying, selling, scolding, whipping, 
driving, — with slothful, unskilful, wasteful laborers: — want of 
schools, churches, arts, sciences, towns, markets: — in a word, 
general want of individual comfort — social and national pros- 
perity, with constant fear of insurrection, and foreign inter- 
ference, 

2. Whether they have inconvenience or not, they get along 
much faster and more happy than we do. They are our 
superiors in wealth, education, arts, sciences, morals, and 
Stale prosperity. 

3. Is it no better that a few masters should suffer a small 
inconvenience, rather than that three millions of our fellow- 
beings should suffer inconveniences a thousand fold greater, 
and the robbery of their dearest rights? As we have said, in 
the scale of humanity and Christianity, the convenience of 
one man and his family is as great as that of any other. And 
the man that will obey Christ's command, in "loving his 
neighbor as himself," will feel so. "Charity seeketh not her 
own." Again, the non-slaveholders, (who in our State are 
six to one,) suffer a great inconvenience in getting free labor- 
ers; because slavery makes labor disreputable, and keeps 
away the free laborer. Is it not better that one should suffer, 
in common with others a little inconvenience for a while, 
than that six should suffer a greater inconvenience, — an incon- 
venience which they must continue to feel as long as slavery 
exists? 

Lastly, who is willing, at the peril of his souVs salvation, 
to practice a manifest sin against his God, his fellow man, and 
his country, rather than suffer a little temporal inconvenience? 
The above objection is very common in our country. Let 
the friends of humanity and justice be active in showing its 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. , 167 

true character. It will sacrifice riijht and general good for 
momentary ease. It is not the spirit of Ciirist, who was wil- 
ling to toil that he inisht save a world, and afterward enjoy 
the peaceable fruits of Righteousness. 

Not only is emancipation the policy securing prosperity, but 
it is safe. Safe not only abroad where there was tive, ten, 
and in some places til'teen slaves to one freeman, but it is safe 
at home where there are five, ten, and in some places fifteen 
freemen to one slave. 

Nine Stales of our own Union have emancipated upon the 
soil with safely and continued prosperity: — every one of them 
more prosperous than the Slates where slavery exists. And 
from facts which we have previously noticed, we believe it 
would have been even better had emancipation been immediate 
than gradual — better to master and slave, neighbor, schools, 
church and State. 

The freed man can live here and prosper. It is the testi- 
mony of a number of the best men of our country, that the 
free colored people of our country are as civil, as law-abiding, 
and virtuous, as any other people with the same amount of 
education. In Cincinnati, where their chance has been bad 
enough, there are two thousand and forty-nine free colored peo- 
ple. One thousand of these are church members. Five hun- 
dred and nine belong to temperance societies. Three hundred 
and sixty-nine have been slaves; tor whose redemption there 
was paid (chiefly by themselves) the sum of one hundred and 
sixty-six thousand fifty dollars. Tliey hold proporly in the 
city to the amount of one hundred and frfly thousand one 
hundred dollars — nearly a third more property to each family 
of five persons, than in Iiil)eria. They have five churches, 
three literary societies, and three schools. Is not this infin- 
itely better than slavery? The comparison reminds one of 
the joys of heaven, compared with the sorrows of hell. As 
I know from personal observation, their physical, intellectual, 
and moral condition is infinitely better than those in slavery. 
Besides, there is the inestimable boon of liberty. Its value 
to all men, even to the long abused and degraded slave, admits 
of no comparison or estimate.* We sometimes hear persons 

* A slave in our State, who is but lifty-six years of age, (and whose 
old master has been dead many years, and whoso mistress died a few 

years since.) said to a son of the old master: "Massa B , what is 

going to become of me? didnt you ii=ed to say I should go free at old 



168 , REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

refer to the condition of the Negroes in what are called thd 
''.amps in idams and Brown comities, Ohio, as evidence that 
*hey will do no good in a state of freedom. Now, it has 
been my privilege to pass through one of these settlements; 
nnd without hesitancy I will say, of all the poor, dismal, 
clay swamp that I ever saw human heings attempt to live in, 
that is the worst. And I am told, the other is no better. The 
colored people were taken there from Virginia, with all the 
degradation that slavery could heap upon them, placed in that 
poor swamp by those who seemed to have had no concern 
for them, and the wonder to me is, that they have done so 
well as they have. I do not believe the man lives who could 
make a comfortable living there. And for any man to refer 
to these colored people, as a fair sample of what the mass of 
diem will do, or are doing, shows that he is either disiionest, 
unpardonably prejudiced, or ignorant of their true condition. 
In another portion of Brown county, where the land is good, 
and the colored people are encouraged by the kind and thrifty 
white people around them, they are doing well. An Elder in 
the Presbyterian Church (Old School) who is a long resident, 
and a substantial farmer, said to me: " In reference to the 
physical condition of the colored people here" (and there is 
not a few of them I assure you) "they don't know what want 
is. And as to their moral condition, it is a little better than 
that of the whites, with the same amount of education." 
Reader, give the colored people a fair chance, and the history 
of the world for it, they will take care of themselves. 

The American Citizen says, concerning ihe people of color 
in Philadelphia: "More than one- fourth of the whole popula- 
tion are members of some branch of the christian church. 
They have four literary societies, and one devoted to Theolog- 
ical studies, containing more than six hundred members in all. 
There are within the precincts of the city and county of 
Philadelphia, no less than twenty houses for religious worship. 
They have seven difTerent temperance societies, embracing 
thousands of members. There are one hundred beneficial 
societies, which dispense yearly to the sick and needy an 

mistress' death?"' "Yes," said JMassa B , '-but I have concluded 

that you are getting old, and had better be kept as a slave, and be provi- 
ded for." The poor old slave said, '-I had rather die and go to hell! 
If I have to live but forty dats, let me be a fuee max." Liberty 
•with ALi men is inestimable. The slave alluded to is with a "kind 
master," if any master may be called kind : yet he desired liberty. 



S.EME1))Y FOR THE EVIL. lB9 

average of two huniked dollars each; that is twenty thousand 
dollars. Is not this better than slavery? Is their condition 
so good even in Liberia? 

Still stronger. The Legislature of Michigan appointed a 
committee to report upon the propriety of extending the right 
of suffrage to colored men. The committee reported favora- 
bly; and farther state: "Your committee has been assured by 
citizens of Detroit, well qualified to judge, and entitled to full 
credit, that the moral habits of this people arc better than 
those of an average and equal number of whites." (This 
has perhaps arisen from special effort on their part, and that 
of anti-slavery men, to encourage and aid them. But what 
has been done there, may be done in other places.) "The 
colored population of Detroit is about three hundred. It has 
two churches, two Sabbath schools, a day school, a temper- 
ance society, a female benevolent society, a young men's 
Lyceum and debating society. Over two hundred and fifty — 
(all save one-sixth part) — regularly attend the ciuirches." * 
* * "The same facts were also shown in the colored popu- 
lation of Washtenaw. In that county, there are many farmers 
of the highest respectability. They are independent in cir- 
cumstances, good citizens, encouragers of schools, churches 
and morality." A thousand examples might be adduced 
proving that emancipation is safe; and that the colored man 
can rise even here in society — in virtue, intelligence, and 
respectability. Nothing but an unholy prejudice prevents 
them from doing so here, as in other places. Governor Giles 
of Virginia, said: "It will be adfhiUed, that this caste of 
colored population attract but litde of the public sympathy 
and commiseration; in fact, that the public sentiment and 
feeling are opposed to it." * * * * * * 
Yet he says: " The proportion of the annual convictions to 
the whole population is as one to five thousand." "These 
facts," (with other facts cited by hiiti) he says — "serve to 
prove, almost to a demonstration, 1st, that this class of popu- 
lation is by no means so degraded, vicious, and demoralized, 
as represented by their prejudiced friends and voluntary ben- 
efactors. And 2d, that the evils attributed to this caste are 
vastly magnified and exaggerated." Letter of W. B. Giles, 
Governor of Virginia, to Lafayette, in 1829. 

Under the head of emancipation we notice this fact: Within 
the last forty years, emancipation has taken place in forty-five 
different places; and in every single instance it has been with 
V 



170 REMEDY FOK THE EVIL. 

safety. How can any man, in view of these facts, talk about 
"ovenurninj^ society, and destroying our country,' if we eman- 
cipate here"? To' talk so, is to manifest either a great want 
of sound reflection, and ordinary intelligence ; or a willful 
blindness to well known facts. The colored man then, can 
live and prosper here; and society be infinitely more safe and 
peaceful than in a state of slavery. 

But, says one, I will go in for emancipation, if you will 
adopt the plan of the colonization society — send the colored 
people to Africa. To this we reply: — 

1. The object of the Colonization Society, as declared 
in its constituiion, is only to colonize "the free people of color, 
with their oicn consent.'' It is, therefore, no remedy for 
slavery. The slaves must be first emancipated before they 
can be colonized. 

But, do you say, emancipate the slaves only on condition 
that they will, or shall, be colonized. This, we reply, would 
he to act the robber's part. He meets you, presents his 
pistol, and tells you if you will give him your money he will 
spare your life, or let you go free. He has ovei powered you 
— ^has the advantage, and requires you to give up a natural 
right. Thougii you choose to do so, rather than meet death, 
yet you complain of the act as cruel, and worthy of punish- 
ment from God and man. You ivould do the same thing in 
quality, did you require the slave to leave the land of his 
birth, a land where he has acquired a birthright, a land of 
health and civilization — meet the perils of the ocean — undergo 
the mortality of a strange, hot, and sickly climate, in order 
to have liberty. No man can do this and do as he would be 
done by. Let us try it: You and I, dear reader, are, for the 
present, descendants of Irishmen. The descendants of the 
Scotch and English are in the majority. A prejudice arises 
against us Irish, and having the power in their favor, they 
decree that ws must leave friends, and the land of our birth, — 
Gospel privileges to a great extent — meet the perils of the 
ocean — take up our abode among the bogs of Ireland — alledg- 
ing, as a sufficient reason for all this, that there is a prejudice 
against us, that Heaven seems to have made a distinction 
between us and them — we have black hair, are low in stature, 
square built, and just fitted to handle the sliovel, and pitch 
turf, i'jow, every man would see that such reasoning would 
be very insufficient, and such a prejudice very unjust. And 
yet it is the very same ground on which we propose to colo- 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL, 17^ 

l]ize the African. Fiejudkc, unholy prejudice, is al the 
bottom of the whole of it; and on the same ground we might 
colonize many of the best classes, and associations of men, 
in our land. Every man who is not a criminal, has a right 
to liberty in the land where he is born. There he has birth- 
rights; and to banish him, is to inflict upon an innocent man 
the penalty of a criminal. Banishment has always been con- 
sidered a penalty for crime. I do not believe that any man 
can do it and love his neighbor as himself. We have territo- 
ry enough here for them and us too. Do you say, "it is not 
prejudice with me; I only wish to promote the good of the 
colored man." Well, let us try this; Do you think you can 
aid, — can benelit him as much when you have spread a broad 
and dangerous ocean between you and him, as you can wheu 
he is near by you; where he has health, you have means, and 
the Government has plenty of land? Impossible! 

But do you again object, and say, "I wish to civilize Africa." 
Then we ask, what progress do you expect to make in civili- 
zing savages with those who are themselves uneducated; 
and whom some colonizationists have pronounced "half civil- 
ized;" and that, too, by sending them there, contrary to the 
real wishes of many? This would be like whipping slaves 
to make them come in to hear Massa pray. There is a better 
way of doing this work, — a cheaper and a far more efficient 
way. Employ the same money you would thus expend, in 
sending to Africa Missionaries whose hearts are in the work, 
who have piety and intelligence; and one will do more than 
a hundred of your colonists. 

Again, such colonization is notonly unjust, and unchristian, 
but \\ is a hopeless scJieme; — inadequate. There are in the 
United States about three millions of slaves; and four hundred 
thousand free colored people. The increase of this part of 
our population, is about ninety thousand annually — increase 
of slaves eighty thousand — increase of free colored, tea 
thousand. Now ihe colonization society has been organized 
twenty-nine years; and in the work of colonizing more than 
twenty-five years.* The society has sent off four thousand 
one hundred and sixty-eight colonists — an average of one 
hundred aod sixty-six annually — not the five hundredth part 
of the increase; much less any of the principal. In the whole 

* This calculation was made ?.t the first publication of these articles, 
184fi. 



172 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

twenty-Jiv e years it has not taken off one-half of the mere 
increase of theyVee colored population for one year; much 
less any of ihe eighty thousand increase of slaves annually. 
If the colored population continue to increase as it has done, 
(they will double themselves in less than twenty years, says 
the Christian Observer) we shall have at the end of forty 
years, fourteen millions — near the number of our present 
white population. Some colonizationists ask a century to 
complete their work. (Af. Repos. V. 367.) Then with the 
present ratio of increase, we shall have a colored population 
of more than one hundred millions. Is the Colonization 
Society adequate to the task? 

"The rustic waiting stands to see the flowing river dry, 
Nor thinks its high fountains continnous streams supply; 
Downward it comes and rolls, and will till time itself shall die."' 

One of the Vice Presidents of the Colonization Society — 
R. J. Harper, said: "The renioval of a few thonsand indi- 
viduals will, in an evil of such magnitude, produce but little 
effect; it will not materially benefit this class of population 
themselves; and though three or four hundred thousand 
already free should be removed, the great political mischief 
among us, will be but slightly effected." (Seventh Report, 
page 8. 

Do you say "when the society becomes more efficient, it 
will accomplish more?" We answer, instead of becoming 
more efficient, it is becoming more inefficient; and that because 
the people of this nation are convinced, by trial, that it is 
hopeless, inexpedient, and wrong. It is hopeless. Where 
are the means! In 1839 the Colonization Society, with one 
hundred and thirty thousand dollars received from Govern- 
ment for the settlement of re-captured Africans, had expended 
five hundred thousand dollars to build up a colony of about 
four thousand people: i. e. about one hundred and twenty-five 
dollars per head. Twenty-five dollars is the passage money, 
— the expense of crossing the ocean Then lands have to 
be purchased, houses built for them to live in, their expenses 
paid during their seasoning, their sickness, which all have with 
the African fever: — utensils to work with: — clothing and food 
until they can raise a crop. One hundred dollars is a moder- 
ate calculation for each colonist. Then if we could remove 
every colored person in the United States to-morrow morning, 
T^ithout delaying for further increase, it would take three 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 173 

hundred million fpiir hundred thousand dollars. Who will 
raise the money? The North won't do it. The East won't 
do it. The West won't do it: and the South will say she has 
done her part to give up her slaves. Who will raise the 
money? Nobody: And there is an end of it. 

Suppose we had the money necessary; would the slave- 
holder give up the slaves? If they do not do so now, are we 
to expect that whilst they tind slavery a shade in the summer, 
and a tire in the winter: — whilst there are divines and jurists, 
going throughout the length and breath of the South, telling 
the masters that slavery is an institution given by Heaven to 
man — the Bible sanctions it — the Patriarchs practiced it — 
and "it is the corner Stone of our republican edifice" — under 
such circumstances, with such teachers, and with what daily 
observation teaches us, are we to expect they will give up. 
their slaves? No! — never, until you go to the conscientious 
and show them that slavery is a sin against their fellow-men, 
their country, and their God: — to the whole mass of the 
people, and show them that slavery is contrary to their inter- 
ests, their comfort, their safety, and national prosperity. — 
Those who will not regard moral principle, the welfare of 
their neighbors, and country ; you must do a work for them 
at the ballot box — vote down the system. This is constitu- 
tional and right. The people have a right to remove in a 
constitutional manner, that which is a manifest injury to their 
country. Washington, writing to Lafayette concerning eman- 
cipation, in our country, said:' "It [emancipation] certainly 
might and ought to be effected; and that too by Legislative 
authority." 

But colonization will never remove slavery. As coloniza- 
tion advances, slavery will be tightened. When the free 
colored population are removed, as colonizationists themselves 
teach, "the slaves will be more secure." Hence more valua- 
ble to the master. Also as free laborers are removed there 
will be a greater demand for slave labor. Hence the slave 
will be more valuable to the master. With this demand too, 
there will be corresponding efforts on the part of slave breed- 
ers, and traders, to increase the stock. Slaves being property, 
like other property, will be regulated in value by want and 
supply. — So, colonization will but tighten slavery upon us. 
And at last, when years of precious time have rolled away, 
your money squandered, and your state impoverished, as Vir- 
ginia and other slave states, then at last you will have to resprt 
to legislation to rid you of the evil. 



J74 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

But suppose you had the money necessary, and the colored 
people all at your dispos;d; it would then be wrong for you 
to send them — to compel them to go. 

(1.) There would not be one, out of a hundred, who would 
be willing to go. If he consented, it would be as the man 
gives up his money when the robber's pistols is pointed at 
him: he chooses to do it rather than meet death. So. some 
colored men would choose Africa, rather than slavery. But 
who can do as he would be done by and do this? Do you 
say it will be better for him. Then we reply; of that he is 
the sole judge. If you assume the right to judge for him, 
then a man who professes to have more intelligence and 
power, may judge for you and send you along with the 
slaves. Absurd and unrighteous as is this mode of action, 
yet more than one half of those sent out by the American 
Colonization Society have been sent in this way. " One 
thousand six hundred and eighty-seven free colored persons 
went to Liberia, up to September, 1843. Ninety-seven others 
who had purchased their freedom, and two thousand three 
hundred and eighty-four who were emancipated;" that is, 
when they got to Liberia — on condition that they went to 
Liberia. Out of thirty-four which went from Kentucky, in 
1846, two of them only were free born. Two of the thirty- 
four were free born, the rest were set free to go to Liberia* — 
that is, they were piU into the hands of tlie Colonization 
Society, that they might be mads free in Liberia; — or they 
were to be free on condition that they would go to Liberia. 
No man can do this, and do as he would be done by. 

Still further, had you the means, — had you the men at 
your disposal, and had you their consent; still, it would be 
wrong and unchristian in you to send them; because of the 
great mortality or number of deaths that ivoiild ensue. Of 
the four thousand one hundred and sixty-eight who were col- 
onized from this country in Liberia, eight hundred and seventy- 
four died of African fever alone. This is a disease which all 
take, who go there from this country. In their seasoning 
near one-fourth have died of this disease alone: and all must 
have it. One hundred and eight returned to the United States. 
Sixty-eight left Liberia for other countries. One hundred and 
ninety-seven reiiioved to Sierra Leone. Four hundred and 

* For the above two quotations, see the Annual Report of the Ken 
^cky Colonization Society for 1846. 



nEMKDY lOU THE EVIL. l75 

twenty-six have died frc-.n other diseases, casuahties, &cl,- — 
leaving two thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. This in 
twenty-five years is a great and useless mortality; and colo- 
nizationists are responsible for it. After adding two hundred 
ai>J eighty-six re-captured Africans to four thousand one hun- 
dred and sixty.eighl, that went out from the United Stales, 
the Kentucky Colonization Society report two thousand two 
hundred and fifty-seven living up to September, 1843, out of 
four thousand four hundred and fifty-four. (See the report for 
1846.) Now here is a useless destruction ot lives: — it is a 
murderous policy. How much better for the poor African, 
had the same money and labor been bestowed in getting him 
a home in this land, where he could have enjoyed health and 
life. We are indirectly guilty of the murder of hundreds of 
our fellow-beings; and that for the sake of gratifying an un- 
holy prejudice. 

The ground of the Colonization Society in removing the 
people of color to Africa, or any other place, is that there is a 
prejudice against them. This is assumed as a ground of 
colonization. (See Af. Repos. v. 51, vii. 230, 231.) It is 
declared that "invincible prejudice excludes them from the 
enjoyment of the society of the whites, and denies to them 
all the advantages of free men." (Af. Repos. vi. 17.) It is 
known to all men, that this is the chief ground of action. 
But is it a ground on which any man ought to act? On the 
same ground we might colonize the brethren of the Methodist, 
Baptist or Presbyterian church. On the same ground we 
might colonize you, dear reader; because there may be a 
prejudice against you. On the same ground we might attempt 
to colonize Jesus Christ, and Almighty God. 

This prejudice against color is sinful, — one which God has 
most signally punished. The wife of Moses was an Ethio- 
pian. Miriam, his sister, would scoff at him; "spake against 
him because of die Ethiopian woman whom he had married." 
God, m a most signal manner, struck her with the leprosy; 
"She became leprous, white as snow." This prejudice against 
color is no less sinful and displeasing to God now than then; 
and a day of retribution will come to us also, dear reader. 
Now, colonization, instead ot rebuking this sinful prejudice, 
Encourages, feeds, perpetuates it. 

Well, says one, "African colonization is inexpedient; but; 
let us colonize the slaves to a part of our own continent." 
Then, wc answer: 



176 Remedy for ^iie evil. 

(1.) The principle will be the same as in the former — il 
will be on the gromid of a sinful prejudice. 

(2.) We have no right to do so, only with their own choice, 
after they shall have become tree men, with the immunities of 
free men. Then, if they wish to go, we are willing to aid 
them in getting a home of their choice. But to compel them 
to go would be oppressive, unjust and unchristian. It would 
be to treat an innocent man as a criminal. 

(3.) You have first of all to get him free from the claims 
of his master: and you have no more assurance that his 
master would let hinl go to the latter place than he would 
to Africa. The first work that every man has to aim at, is 
emancipation. 

WelJ, then, says orle, "I suppose you go in for amalgama- 
tion, and all this sort of thing." Not so, gentle reader. On 
this point, we want you to stop a moment — look at facts, and 
be your own judge. In those States where emancipation has 
taken place, there is not the hundredth part of the amalga- 
mation there that there is in our slave States. Every man 
who has traveled out of the smoke of his father's chimney, 
knows this fact. Then, to emaacipUte is to prevent amal- 
gamation. It can never take place nnless men choose to do 
so; and that will not be your or ray fault. Should amalga- 
mation ever follow emancipation, it will be long after you, and 
I, and our children, have gone to our graves. And if public 
sentiment shall demand it, then it will be supposed that there 
is no harm in it. The inconsistent fastidiousness of sorhe 
persons on this subject, renders them ridiculous and Pharisa- 
ical, to say the least. There are some who seem to be 
perfectly horrified at the possibility of a few cases occurring^ 
when it would be voluntary and sanctioned by law, but when 
in their very midst, in a state of slavery, there are thousands 
of cases, illicit, criminal and coercive, their tastes seem never 
to be ruffled, and the equanimity of their tender consciences 
never disturbed. 

But do you again object and say: "Then they will become 
a pilferi-ag set, and a constant pest to society." Then, we 
answer: (1.) They will not pilfer as much in a a state of 
freedom as they now do in a state of slavery. Facts show 
that there is not the tenth part of theft amongst the colored 
people of the free States, that there is amongst our slaves. 
We have previously pointed out reasons why they do, as a 
matter of fact, steal more in a slate of slavery than in a slate 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. l77 

of freedom. If they in any other manner violate the laws 
and peace of society, then there are laws to punish and re- 
strain them, as white men are punished and restrained. Most 
persons, in their evil forebodings, seerri to forget this fact. 

And, do you again object and say: — "There will be old 
persons and children who cannot take care of themselves." 
For these there is also provision made. It is the duty of our 
county courts to see that all children who have not good 
homes are bound out and provided for until they are of age.* 
As for those who are old and infirm, v/e have poor-houses for 
such; and it will not cost us the hundredth part to take care 
of the few who cannot provide for themselves that it now 
does to sustain our system of slavery. Facts prove this. 
The truth is, reader, it is safer, it is easier, it is cheaper, to do 
right than to do wrong. Facts prove it. 

Do you once more object, and say: "It is a breach of faith 
for government to encourage masters to invest property in 
slaves, and afterwards withdraw protection from such prop- 
erty?" We answer: 

(1.) Governments have no right to violate the very end 
for which they were formed — "the protection of rights," the 
rights of all its subjects. Governments have no right to 
encourage or allow one part of their subjects to rob others of 
the very rights which governments are designed to protects 

(2.) No man has a right to commit a manifest sin in en- 
slaving his fellow man under the paper protection of govern- 
ments. And because the master has been unwise or reckless 
in the outlay of a little money, that is no reason why the 
slave should be robbed of that which by nature belongs to 
him — his liberty. The slave too has rights, as well as his 
master. 

(3.) Governments always have claimed the right of correct- 
ing abuses, and we have, in our Declaration of Independence, 
proclaimed to the world — " That to secure the inalienable 
rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, govern- 
ments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers 

* I suppose that masters might remain as guardians over the servant 
children of their households (when the children have not parents to take 
care of them,) until they are twenty-one. The moment a man records 
his slaves free at a certain age, he ceases to be a slaveholder; he has 
given up the right of property in man — he exercises only a guardianship 
over them. He will be guilty of oppression if he extends his control 
beyond a proper time for their freedom. 



178 REMEDY TOR THE KVIL. 

from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form 
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 
rig/it of the people to alter and abolish it, and to institute a 
new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and 
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem 
most likely to elfect their safety and happiness." Manifestly, 
we have the right to alter our laws on this subject, which are 
manifestly oppressive to the slave, and destructive of the 
safety and happiness of the white man. 

When anti-slavery men plead for the peaceful and constitu- 
tional abolition of slavery, some people object, and say: — 
"Abolitionists are interfering" with the rights of the master." 
They seem to lorget that the slave has rights, as well as the 
master, — rights which are "inalienable," and, by consequence, 
neither the master nor legislatures can alienate them. Also, 
the non-slaveholders have a right to a redress of grievances. 
Slavery is a grievance to them. No government may promote 
the interest of the few at the expense of the many. 

But says another, " I have raised my slaves." — So you 
have, (unless they have raised themselves and you too,) and 
you have raised your son, who is now twenty-one: and may 
"you therefore hold him as a slave? No ! says the world. If 
then, you may not enslave your son, much less may you 
enslave the son of another man. 

Another objects, and says: "The law requires me to give 
security for their maintenance, provided they shall fall as a 
charge upon the State." We answer: (1.) The law is 
unnecessary and unjust, and we should seek its repeal as 
soon as possible, refusing to vote for any man who will not 
labor for its repeal, and it will soon be repealed. (2.) In the 
mean time, either give security for the poor man who has 
toiled for you and your children, or else take him across the 
river, where the lavv requiring security is, as it should be, a 
dead letter. Let your light shine, and your influence be felt, 
and soon, in our own State, there will be no inconvenience 
on this point. 

Again, do you object — "That in some States the laws pos- 
itively forbid emancipation, by requiring the freed man to be 
sold again into slavery?" We answer: (1.) Such laws are 
unjust and oppressive, and have no more right to require this 
of you, and tramel the poor slave, than Pharaoh had to require 
the children of Israel to make brick without straw: or that 
they should not go out to sacrifice, without his consent. 



REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. I'^W 

Liberty is an inalienable right, and the province of govern- 
ments is to protect men in the enjoyment of it. Let us seek 
the immediate repeal of such laws. (2.) Take your slaves 
(to whom you should do as you would be done by,) to a free 
State: then they will be free. (3.) If you cannot do this, 
set them free where they are; free your own skirts of the 
sin of oppression, and a wicked example. Soon a public 
conscience will be formed, and none will have the hardihood 
to molest the freed man. So it was in South Carolina when 
the Quakers set theirs free. 

Again, do you say — "You have not had your slave long, 
and you think he ought to stay until he pays for himself." 
We answer: (1.) It is not his fault that you paid out your 
surplus money for a man, who is innocent, and rightfully 
belongs to himself. He ought not to suffer oppression, — the 
robbery of his dearest rights, because of your and other per- 
sons wrong acts. (2.) Were you the slave, you would not 
like the master to be the sole judge of the time when the 
debt would be liquidated: — You would think the time long, 
and the lot oppressive. (3.) Should you die before the time, 
or become involved in debt, then your slave will be seized by 
law, and sold into perpetual bondage. In addition to all this, 
your example will be seen to the world as a slaveholder. You 
will lend your name and influence in society to perpetuate one 
of the greatest evils that ever befell your country, and the 
church of Christ, — a great sin against your fellow man, and 
your God. Should you buy a slave in order that he may be 
free by working out his purchase money, free him, and take 
his obligation for the amount, if you are not able to give it to 
him. Or if he is a minor, see to it that a deed of emancipa- 
tion is immediately recorded, securing his freedom in the 
event you shall die." Also, thus he will be only a bound 
boy, and your example cannot be plead as a slaveholder. 
Lastly, do you say — "I bought my slave at his or her request, 
to keep her from being separated from her family, and from 
enduring cruel treatment. — I did it as an act of mercy." We 
answer: (1.) Carry your mercy a little farther, as the prim- 
itive Christians used to do, and let him or her have their entire 
liberty — their "inalienable rights." Though you may have 
rescued him or her from the robber's hands, that does not 
justify you in continuing to be a robber, a withholder of the 
"inalienable rights" of man. You are doing the same thing, 
in quality, that the former master was doing; the quantity of 



180 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

suffering is a little diminished. (2.) AVhen you die, you will 
entail upon the slave and his posterity the horrors of bondage; 
and upon your own posterity, the accumulating evils and vices 
of slavery. I am myself a witness of the evils of these sup- 
posed, and former good intentions. To relieve momentary 
and individual pain, you accumulate, in a thousand cases, 
future woe. "You do" (if your heart don't deceive you in 
the desire for a little ease,) "good, that evil may come." (3.) 
The world is a stranger to your present motives, and your 
example is seen and plead as a wilful slaveholder. You give 
your example and influence to perpetuate upon your fellow 
men, and your country, the admitted and enormous evil. — 
And all your more kind actions, while still a slaveholder, serves 
only to salve over the horrors of slavery, and perpetuate on us 
the great evil. Oh ! it is these kind masters that perpetuate 
slavery. If it had been left only in the hands of the cruel, 
our country would have spewed it out long since. It is not 
the example of the sot, but the example of the moderate 
dram-drinker, that makes dram-drinking tolerable, and thereby 
multiplies drunkards in our midst. So it is the example of 
these kind masters that makes slavery tolerable; throws a 
delusive veil over its true nature; and perpetuates the untold 
evil. Fellow man ! wash your hands in innocency. Do 
you say I cannot afford to lose so much? — I want government 
to pay me for my slaves. We reply: (1.) What would you 
think of the dram-seller v/ho should ask government to pay 
him to quit poisoning his neighbors? And, upon second 
reflection, what do you think of yourself for asking govern- 
ment to pay you to quit oppressing your poor, unoffending 
fellow beings? Must you be paid to do that which is right? 
(2,) When you have freed the poor man or v;oman you will 
be as rich, or richer, in this world's goods than he or she will 
be. (3.) The Christians at Ephesus, when they saw that 
they were making their living in a wrong manner, "by curious 
arts, they brought their books together and burned them before 
all men; and they counted the price of them, and found it 
fifty thousand pieces of silver." Acts 19: 19. As Christ 
said to the lawyer, "go thou and do likewise," — make sacrifice 
rather than do wrong. Shrink not from the work of duty 
because it may be attended with difticulties of any kind. It 
is a well known principle in law and morals, that we may 
never take advantage of our own wrongs, to perpetuate evils 
9j:^ Others. 



itEMEnV FOR THE EVit. tSt 

And now dear reader, in conclusion let me say if you and 
I have been either a practical slaveholder, or simply a non- 
slaveholder, but a sustainer of the laws that help the slave- 
holder to do his work of oppression to man, and moral and 
political death to the nation; though it may cost us time, moneyj 
persecution and public commotion, let us do so no more. Let 
us '^remember those in bonds as bound with them" by break- 
ing every yoke, and labor to induce our neighbors to do the 
same, If by faith in God and persevering effort, you succeed 
in reifloving this great evil, you will wipe out the darkest 
spot on your nation's glory, and achieve the most glorious 
triumph written upon the scroll of time. The living will 
praise you; posterity will hail you as the benefactor of man-' 
kind; and brightest and best of all, Christ Jesus will hail 
you, at the judgment morn, with the plaudit, "well done thou 
good and faithful servant; inasmuch as you done it" (acts of 
benevolence) "unto one of the least of these my breathren, ye 
have done it unto me: — enter thou into the joys of thy Lord.'* 
Amen, and Amen. 

But, on the other hand, if you refuse to co-operate with 
your fellow men in removing this growing curse, then calam- 
ity, untold and inevitable, awaits you, and your posterity. 
Never has it been known that any people remained perpetu- 
ally in bondage. Either they have risen in their own strength, 
by the aid of allies, or by the arm of God, and avenged their 
wrongs. The slaves in our midst are fast increasing on us. 
We are growing fewer in number and weaker in body. The 
North, the Eist, the West, are fust becoming alienated from 
us, beccuse of ouroppression — of our wrongs and usurpations. 
Other nations are looking upon us with feelings of righteous 
indignation. Three millions of slaves in our midst, are ready 
to rise at the tap of a drum. The day is fast approaching 
when forbearance will cease to be a virtue; and < ! my breth- 
ren, what can we do in the day of calamity, when our iniquities 
are beino- visited on our own heads, and the vials of God's 
wrath are poured out upon us? We can, if we will, avert 
the impending ruin. If we do duty to the slave, he will 
become our friend; the world will become our friend; God 
will become our friend. We shall be stable and prosperous 
by virtuous action; stand as a beacon to the world; and con- 
tinue a fountain of good until liberty, enrobed in light, shall 
wave her lovely flag triumphant over every land, arid the 
QJive of peace deck the brow of every nation. 



183 REMEDY FOR THE EVIL. 

Action is glory won; but to refuse to act is treason to your 
country, rebellion to God, and treachery to man. 



APPENDIX. 



A. 

DIFFERENCE OF COLOR, FORM, AXD INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY 
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 

Some persons in our country, claim a right to enslave the 
colored man or Negro,* on the assumption that he is a 
different race of beings from the white man; and was made 
to be enslaved. Such persons take the position of the Infidel, 
in denying the Bible, which teaclies us that God hath made 
of ONE blood all nations of men. Acts 17: 26 — that we 
are all descendants of one father, and members of the same 
family. 

Another class of persons admit, and believe the Bible doc- 
trine, that we are all of one blood, and have a common nature; 
but assume that it was the purpose of God, that the descend- 
ants of Canaan should be enslaved by us ; and that these 
Africans or Negroes, are the descendants of Canaan, and 
their peculiar forni and color, the result of Noah's curse, for 
Ham's sin.t Such persons forget that it is mere assumption 
that the people we are enslaving are Canaanites or the descen- 
dants of Canaan, For the Canaanites were not Africans, but 
Asiatics: — a different nation of people in color, form, and 

* We do not use the term Negro invidiously or carelessly. We use 
it because it is the definite term to designate that 'class of persons, 
whose peculiar features we are considering. All colored people, are 
not Negroes. Nor are all Africans. Negroes; tliough we sometimes have 
used the terms as synonymous. 

•J- The above substituie for argument, is very common here in Ken- 
tucky, and other places in the South, — proclaimed by Judges and Law- 
yers, Ministers and People. At the end of this subject of color, we 
phall notice briefly, the book of Joshua Priest, which is circulating in 
our eountrv. 



184 COLOR. 

language, from those of the Western coast bf Africa, whoni 
we are enslaving — see chapter II. Another class of persons 
see a great variety in the physical and intellectual appearace 
of the human family, and honesUy wish to be able to give an 
intelligent reason, for this variety ot appearance. On the 
Bible ground that all are of one blood, we can account for the 
variety of appearance upon natural, and well known princi- 
ples.* 

COLOR. 

This is the result bf several causes. 

1. Climate is the grand cause, of variety of color. As a 
general rule, color is found to vary as the climate does. By 
climate we do not mean latitude only; but degree of heat — 
temperature. To illustrate; — Abyssinia in Africa, is much 
cooler than Senegambia, though in the same latitude. Abys- 
sinia has an altitude of two miles above the level of the ocean, 
and this renders the temperature cooler. Abyssinia is also 
fanned by breezes from the Indian Ocean. Also, during a 
portion of the year, it is cooled by continual rains. Its sur- 
face is every where hilly and mountainous. Senegambia, on 
the other hand, is low. Its surface is level: and level, or 
smooth surfaces, reflect nuch more heat than those which 
are hilly, and mountainous. It also is swept by winds, that 
come over a broad expanse of burning sand. Hence, climate 
may be very different in the same latitude. Europe is cooler 
than corresponding portions ef Asia; because the surface of 
Europe, is hilly and mountainous, interspersed with gulfs, 
and almost surrounded with seas. But, as a general rule, 
the climate is hottest under the Equator; and grows cooler 
as we advance towards the poles, either North or South. 
Now, as matter of fact, vve find with this variation of climate, 
a variation in the complexion of the human family: — under 
the Equator, and in the Torrid Zone, we find them black: as 
we advance towards the poles, we find, first, the olive; then 



* For many facts in the following articles, we acknowledge ourselves 
greatly indebted to the valuable works, of Sclmuel Stanhope Smith, D. 
D., L. L. D. — written 17S8: and to the work of PI. Gregoire, of France. 
This last work was translated by D. B. Warden, Secretary of the Amer- 
ican Legation at Paris, and published in IS 10. Smith's work was 
written for the purpose of refuting infidel positions, and had no reference 
to, and both written long before the question of slavery in our country, 
in its present phase, had its origin. 



COLOR. 



185 



the brown; then the copper-colored; then the fair; then the 
florid. That cHmate should thus affect the complexion, is in 
accordance with our own observation. If an individual front 
our midstj should make a trip to New Orleans, when the 
temperature is above what he is accustomed to, if exposed to 
the climate, he will acquire such a hue as will not be erased 
for a twelve month. The manner in which this change of 
complexion is accounted for, is this: — "The human skin has 
been discovered by anatomists to consist of three distinct 
lamelae, or integuments: the external, or scarf skin, which is 
an extremely fine netting, and perfectly transparent, in the 
darkest colored nations, — the interior, or true skin which, in 
people of all the different grades of color is white, — and an 
intermediate membrane, which is cellular in its structure. 
• This membrane is the proper seat of color, being filled with 
a delicate mucus, or viscid liquor, which easily receives the 
lively tinge of the blood, when strongly propelled by any cause 
to the surface; or the duller stain of the bile, when it enters 
in any undue quantity into the circulation. The smallest 
surcharge of this secretion, imparts to it a yellow appearance; 
which, by remaining long in contact with the atmosphere, 
assumes a darker hue, and if exposed, at the same time, to 
the immediate influence of the sun, approaches, according to 
the heat of the climate and the degree in which the bile pre- 
vails, towards black." "When from any cause therefore, the 
biUious secretion has been increased beyond its natural pro- 
portion, approaching the surface of the body in the progress 
of the circulation, the carbonic matter of its composition 
becomes there attached to the viscid mucus, in the cellular 
membrane of the skin, while the more thin and volatile hydro- 
gen, with which it is combined, having a stronger affinity and 
attraction for the oxygen of the atmosphere, and flying off 
first, leaves it precipitated in those cells, where it stains and 
discolors the complexion." * So, Smith and Blumenbach. 
"This secretion," says Dr. M'Clurg, in his treaties on the 
bile, "is always increased according to the degree of heat, 
which prevails in any climate." Then, climate or heat, may 
be the first moving cause of difference of color, in the human 
family. 



* We all know, from observation, that the gal! or bile of any 
animal exposed to the snn and air, in a short time becomes black. 

X 



186 COLOR. 

2. A second cause may be disease or any thing that pro* 
duces a redundancy of bile in the human system; though the 
individual may not have been subjected to uncommon degrees 
of heat. Accordingly, in many diseases, where the patient 
has been long afflicted with an excess of this secretion, the 
complexion will resemble that of various dark colored nations. 
And when this has been continued so long, as radically to 
affect the constitution, then it becomes hereditary, or trans- 
missible from parent to child. Hence Dr. Strack, speaking 
of Jaundice, arising from this excess of billious secretion, 
says; — "I have seen tlie skin after such a Jaundice, remain 
of an olive color like that of the Asiatics; and even be im- 
parted to children. One I have seen become nearly as black 
as an East Indian: and another the whole skin of whose body, 
became as dark as if he had been the offspring of an Indian 
Father, and European iMotlier." 

3. Another. cause, of the dark color of some of the human 
family, is their manner of living. This is a general expres- 
sion, including exposure to vapour arising from stagnant 
waters, with which uncultivated regions abound — miasma 
from decaying vegatation — great fatigues — poverty of diet, 
and filthiness of living; all of which create a surcharge of 
the billious secretion. Hence, savages, because of their con- 
stant exposure to these causes, are always darker than civil- 
ized men in the same climate. And hence the dark color of 
the Laplander, Greenlander, Laponians and other tribes living 
in extreme cold, and damp places. 'For though cold, when 
assisted by nutritious food, and the comfortable clothing and 
lodging furnished by civilized life, propels the blood with force 
to the surface, and tends, in a healthful state of the body, to 
render the complexion clear, yet, when the system may be 
relaxed by any cause — the patient without food appropriate 
to enrich the blood — the blood being driven from the extremi- 
ties of the body — the pours of the skin obstructed by these 
causes, billious secretions in undue proportions ensue'; and 
"being kept nearly in a stagnant state at the surface of the 
body, and in contajct with the external air, an increase of the 
dark color is occasioned." Hence, the deep Laponian com- 
plexion, which has been esteemed a phenomenon, so difficult 
to be explained. The Gypsies, who are continually exposed 
to the sun and dump — having no houses, but wandering about, 
are swarthy, though living in the same climate with the fair 
European. Inspiration has, as I suppose, recognized some 



COLOR. 187 

of these same principles, as the cause of color. Thus, in 
Solomon's song, ch. I, v. 6, the spouse says; "Look not upon 
me for I am black; because the sun hath looked upon me: 
my mother's children were angry with me; they made me 
the keeper of the vineyards." * Here the cause of the black 
complexion, is ascribed to exposure to the sun, and air, in 
keeping the vineyards. 

Now to these principles let us apply well known facts. 
Whether the principles be true or not, the facts cannot be 
denied. In the highlands of the Temperate Zone, as in 
Germany in Europe, and Circassia in Asia, we shall find 
the inhabitants or natives, fair and ruddy. If we go into a 
warmer and lower climate, as South of France, Spain and 
Portugal, there we shall find a people dark or swarthy, 
descended from the same ancestry of the fair German. "The 
natives of the West India Islands, even those Islands settled 
by the English and Danes, and the fairest European nations, 
have already become very dark in their complexion, and 
approaching to a copper hue; although three centuries have 
not yet elapsed since those settlements were first established." 
"A colony of Portuguese, who settled in Congo in Africa, 
some two or three centuries ago, have so degenerated in com- 
plexion, figure, and habits of living, as not to be distinguish- 
able from the neighboring tribes of Hottentots." — Stanhope 
Smith. The Chinese, who have lived for centuries, without 
mingling with other nations, aff'ord a still stronger exempli- 
fication of the truth of the above principles. " In Pekin, 
situated in the North of China, the inhabitants are fair. In 
Canton, situated in the South of China, the inhabitants are 
of a dark copper-color." "In Arabia, in the regions of the 
desert, we find the natives wearing a dark olive complexion; 
and in the province of Yemin, they are black." 

China and Arabia are, perhaps the only civilized countries 
in the world, in which climate combined with manners, have 



* It was the custom of Orientals, to represent the highest excellence, 
by allusions to the marriage relation, and to marriage ceremonies. And 
this song is a description of the near relation of Christ and his church, 
represented by Solomon and his spouse, with her attending virgins--- 
which spouse is supposed to have been Pharaoh's daughter. She seems 
to have been his favorite or true wife; see 1 Kings 3: 1, compared with 
1 Kings 7: S. This spouse was an Egyptian, an African; aiut hence, 
was daik complected. 



188 COLOR, 

attained their utmost effects on the human constitution; because 
they are the only countries in which the inhabitants have 
been able, during a long succession of ages, to preserve them- 
selves unmixed with any other people, and to persevere in 
the same habits of life. "Each parallel of latitude is, among 
them, distinctly marked with its characteristic complexion. 
Thus the best examples that can be found in the world, are 
perfect illustrations of the principles laid down, as the cause 
of different complexions. One more striking exemphfication 
is found in the case of the Jews- This people, governed by 
their religion, may never mix with other nations: and they 
are proverbial for their fidelity in this respect. On examina- 
tion the «'Jew is found to be white in Germany and Poland — 
swarthy in Spain and Portugal— olive in the Barbary States, 
and in Egypt; — and black in Hindostan." Nothing could 
more perfectly prove that color is the effect of climate. And 
hence, according to the testimony of historians "a colony of 
Egyptians who settled at Colchis two thousand years ago, are 
now white, and the Portuguese who settled two or three hun- 
dred years ago on the coast of Africa, are black." 

If it be asked, why does not the African and his children 
become white by living in this climate? We answer: Such 
a change, either in the black man, or in the white man, is not 
the result of one, nor two generations, but of many genera- 
tions, and even centuries. The white man on going to Africa, 
docs not become black immediately. Many generations 
elapse before he does. It is not until as a race he has staid 
there solong that his constitution has been radically changed, 
that he and his posterity will be black. No temporary bleach- 
ing, or coloring, or mark will be transmitted to posterity. // is 
CONSTITUTION Only that is transmissible. Hence the colored 
people as a race must stay here long enough for the climate to 
radically change the constitution, and have its ultimate effect, 
before we can expect them to become white. To do this, 
they must be kept from mixing with those who are still being 
brought from Africa. They must have also the full advan- 
tages of protection from sun, air, and miasma, which civiliza- 
tion and art affords to us. And then, if that colony which 
went from Africa to Colchis on the Black Sea, were there 
hundreds of years before they were bleached, are we to expect 
the African here to become white in one or two generations? 
and that too with all their exposure to a climate, the tendency 
of which is to swarthiness? for the people here are not as 



COLOR. 189 

fair as those in England add Germany. To expect the Afri- 
can, under these circumstances, to put ofi' his constitution, 
and become white in a space of time so short, is not only 
unprecedented, but unphilosophical. That in process of time 
the Africans or Negroes of our country will become light in 
his complexion, we firmly believe; because we have examples 
of their becoming so in Europe; and because we have occular 
demonstration that the whitening process is going on in our 
own country. The present generation of Africans or colored 
people in our country, are lighter in their complexion than 
the colored people of our country were fifty years ago. Those 
in Kentucky are lighter in complexion than those in Louisi- 
ana, and South Carolina. And those who are domestics in 
Kentucky, are lighter in complexion than the field hands. 
These are facts that no man can deny. 

If it be asked why do not the present inhabitants of Amer- 
ica assume the color of the native Indians? We answer: 1st. 
They are now some darker, or more swart'iy, than their fore- 
fathers were, who came from England, and Germany. 2. 
They have not had time sufficient yet, to show the fidl effects 
of the climate. 3. And still more to our purpose, the arts 
and comforts of civilization in giving us appropriate food, 
clothing, and shelter from extreme heat, or cold, — from damp 
vapours of stagnant waters, — the miasma of decaying veget- 
ation, and continued exposure to a tanning atmosphere, will 
prevent us from ever becoming so dark as the Indians were. 
In proportion too, as cultivation of the soil advances, and the 
country becomes drained of its marshes, and damp forests, 
will we be freed from excess of billious secretions, which, as 
we have seen, are one of the causes of dark color. Hence 
physicians tell us, and we know it, that people in the Eastern 
States, or old settled countries, are not so subject to bilious 
diseases, and continued excess of bile, as persons in the West, 
Thus every objection when analyzed, and fully tested, will 
be found to confirm the principles laid down in this article, 
as the true causes of difference of color in the human family. 

Finally, though there were nothing in nature's labratory 
by which to bleach the countenance of the colored man, still 
that fact would not prove that the colored people must have 
had a different parentage, or that their dark color is a badge 
of Noah's curse. Take a case. Here is a father and mother 
who by exposure, are diseased with scrofula: — the disease 
has affected the whole constitution. — It is a law of our being. 



190 coi.ojj. * 

that the constitution of the parent simll be transmitted to the 
child. All the climates in the world cannot save either parent 
or child from the mark. Now, because they may be thus 
differently marked from the rest of their neighbors, does it 
follow that tliey are not descendants of Adam? — that they are 
not our brethren and sisters, possessing a nature like our own? 
or that they are wearing Heaven's curse for Ham's sin? To 
state the case is but to show its fallacy: And it is equally 
unphilosophical for us to say, because a man has a skin a little 
dillerent in color from our own, therefore he cannot have the 
same parentage; or that he wears Heaven's curse for Ham's 
sin. I know a man, descended from virtuous and pious parents, 
who has a suit of hair fiery red, whilst that of his parents, 
and all his brothers and sisters, is black. Does this difTer- 
ence of hair, prove a diflerence of parentage; or that he wears 
Heaven's curse? 

Look at the rest of the animal creation. Often we see the 
foal ditfer in color and bodily conformation from both dam 
and sire: and also different in both color and conformation 
from other foals of the same dam and sire. And it may take 
generations of careful feeding and crossing, before this prog^ 
eny is brought, either in color orform, to resemble the original 
stock. To say then, that difTerence of color, and difference 
of form must have difference of parentage, and difTerence in 
nature, is not only unphilosophical, but contradicted by well 
known, and every day facts. 

In conclusion (upon the principles of African Slavery, and 
Revelation aside) we may ask, how do we know but that we 
pale, or brandy faced fellows, may be the degenerate stock? 
Many are of the opinion that Adam was a red man : and if 
so, we are about as far from the primitive standard as the 
black man. 

Further, if color is to be the standard of natural rights, and 
we carry out the Republican theory, that a majority shall rule, 
then we white-faced fellows should be the slaves, and the 
colored people the masters; for a large portion of the human 
family are colored— only a small part are white. Surely then, 
we all must see, that the position that difference of color 
should he the standard oj naturcd rights, is one as ridicu- 
lous as it is iniquitous: and I believe the time is near at hand, 
when to the American people, it shall be a matter of surprise 
that such delusion should ever, for a moment, have bestrewed 
the minds of an intelligent people. 



^ COLOR. 191 

Josiah Priest, of New York, has published a book; the 
object of which is, to show that "God, in a supernatural man- 
ner, superintended the formation of two of the sons ot Noah 
in the womb of their mother, making Japheth white, and Ham 
black," — "born a Negro, with all the physical, moral, and 
constitutional traits, which mark and distinguish the race ; — 
deceit, treachery, low-mindedness, and malice." Pa. 27, 33. 
This supposition he attempts to establish, by saying that in 
the Hebrew language, names were given descriptive of the 
appearance and nature of things — (Pa. 32) and that the word 
Ham, means black. We remark: Hebrew words and names 
are not always descriptive of appearance and nature. — Thus, 
Abraham did not denote that the person of that name was 
literally the father of a multitude, but the name was prophetic 
of what his posterity should be — multitudinous. The word 
Tyrians did not represent a people literally made of rock, but 
only the people living in a city biiiU. tipon a rock — (Tzor). 
Lybians did not denote a people literally made of the heart 
of the sea, but a people livmg in a country called the heart of 
the sea. Joseph did not mean that he was large or added, 
but was "prophetic of the fact that another son (Benjamin) 
would be added to the family" — Bush. So the word Ham 
was not descriptive of the person, but prophetic of the warm 
or hot country in which his posterity would dwell. The 
primary meanings of the word Ham* as given by Gesenius, 
(than whom we have no better authority in Europe or Amer- 
ica) are, 1. adg. warm, hot. 2. A son of Noah, whose 
posterity are described in Gen. 10: 6-20, as occupying the 
Sauthernmost regions of the known earth, thus according 
aptly with his name, i. e. idarm, ^ot.'" He gives no other 
meaning to the v/ord. He does not give black as even a 
secondary meaning, and if it is ever used to designate black 
in a person, it is only secondarily — as the result of living in 
a hot country. It is not the word for black. An entire 
different word is used for black — see Cant. 1: 5. 

His next position is, that the Copts used the word Ham to 
designate black, and that these Copts or early Egyptians, 
used the same language that Noah did. This is mere asser- 
tion, for Egypt was settled after God had confounded the 
language of men so that they could "not understand one an- 
other's speech." (Gen. 11: 7.) They had to form another 
language. His next position is, that the children or posterity 
of Ham, as in the Cushites, were black ; because to them 



192 cOLOR» yf 

was applied the term Ethiopians — stating that 'Ethiope is a 
Hebrew word, and means black.' The Hebrew word an- 
swering to Ethiopia is Cush, and Ethiopia itself is derived 
from two Greek words which mean literally, to 6z<rnf/te /ace 
— Mtho and Opsis. The Cushites settled first in the South- 
ern part of Asia, and spread afterward into Africa. — The 
region of country was hot and "burnt the face" — and from this 
fact the Greeks and Romans applied the term Ethiopian, 
(Gr. Aithi opissan) to the descendants of Cush, and after- 
wards to all colored persons: and in the translation of the 
Hebrew into Greek, the LXX used the term Ethiopian, to 
designate the Cushites. The very term used, imports that 
color is the result of climate — that the "face was burnt" — 
not originally so. Mr. Priest further attempts to sustain 
the point that all the descendants ot Ham, and all Ethiopians 
were Negroes, from the fact that Miriam and Aaron, upbraided 
Moses for having married "the daughter of Jethro — an Ethi- 
opian." He infers that this objection was on the ground of 
color (and not that she was of another nation) — and that she 
was a Negress, because she was called an Ethiopian — that she 
was, a descendant of Cush, and of necessity a Negress. 
That she was dark complected, we have no doubt; living as 
she did in Midian, now included in whst we call Arabia. 
The Arabs are dark to this time, varying in degrees of color, 
with degrees of heat. But though so dark as to be called an 
Ethiopian, unfortunately for Mr. Priest, she was not a Hamite 
— she was a descendant of Abraham, and of Shem. She 
was the daughter of Jethro who had also the name of Reuel, 
(the name of his father, a custom very common with the 
Jews) who was the son ^f Esau, (Gen. 36: 4) who was the 
son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, the descendant 
of Shem. According to Mr. Priest's position, neither he, 
nor any of Shem's posterity, could be made black by climate 
— (And yet we have historic facts showing that the Jews in 
Hindostan are black, though they are Shemites). Yet this 
Shemitish woman, had been burnt, or tanned by the hot 
climate in which she lived, so as to be called a Cushite or 
Ethiopian — An excellent fact proving our position. Do you 
say Jethro was a descendant of Midian? — this makes the prop- 
osition no better; for Midian was a Shemite — son of Abraham 
by Ketura. Mr. Priest should have noticed that Miriam was 
struck by God with leprosy, because she spake against Moses 
for marrying the Ethiopian. Num. 12: 10. 



roLOR> ids 

Mr. Priest attempts to prove, that Ham and his posterity, 
u-ere always black, and wooly headed; by telling us that 
such living in Africa, have been traced back to near the time 
of Noah. Yet when you come to examine his time — (time 
of Heridotus, four hundred and fifty years before Christ,) it 
was more than a thousand years after the flood, — a lapse of 
time sufficient for the climate of Africa, to have the effect of 
changing the complexion and constitution. Again he tells us, 
that Herodilus says (i. e. more than two thousand years ago) 
"the Colchians, Egyptians, who were all one with the Tyri- 
ans, Zidonians, Ethiopians and Lybians, were black, and had 
short, curling hair." Now, we would rather Mr. Priest had 
given the exact words of Heroditus; for first, Mr. Priest is 
either mistaken, or else, second, he makes Heroditus contra- 
dict himself, and therefore invalidate his testimony; for in 
another place, he tells us that the Oriental (i, e. Asiatic) 
Ethiopians, had straight hair. See Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge — Art, Cush. But who were the Colchians, Mr. 
Priest speaks of. The same author, (Heroditus,) tells us that a 
colony of Egyptians, settled there more than two thousand 
years ago; and if, they should be found having dark skins^shortly 
after settling there, it is entirely in accordance with our posi- 
tions ; — i. e. that constitution retains much of its original 
form or color, until several centuries elapse. But from 
Stanhope Smith, we learn that historic facts declare that 
these Egyptians or descendants of Egyptians, are now white. 

Next, Mr. Priest says, Japheth was born a white man, — 
that white was the meaning of Japheth, and gets up Mr. J. 
Crighton's Dictionary to prove it. We have never heard of 
this Dictionary before. We know that Geseneus, who is of 
the highest authority as a Hebraist, gives as the^only meaning 
to the word Japheth, ^'■widely spreading'''' — r. Pathah, to 
make large, to expand. This corresponds with what the 
Scriptures show the word means: see Gen. 9: 27 — "God shall 
enlarge Japheth" — i. e. his posterity—prophetic or descriptive, 
of what should be the situation of his posterity. So the word 
Shem does not mean red man, but '■'■Fame., Renown^ — his 
posterity should be greatly renowned, on account of the rev- 
elations given to them, and the miracles wrought for them, 
and the favor of being the line of the Messiah. These 
words, as every man can see, were not descriptive of either 
the "appearance or nature" of the sons of Noah, but of 
the situation or condition of their posterity in after ages. 
Y 



X04, toLoii. "^ 

Again, Mr. Priest attempts to sustain his imagined positions; 
by saying that Ham and all his posterity were cursed — by- 
saying that the passage in Gen. 9: 25, (which says "cursed b* 
Canaan",) means cursed be Ham: and then roundly asserts 
that, "In this sense it has ever been understood by all com- 
mentators (in every age), on tiie sacred writing." Now this 
is not so. And the man either knows but little about com- 
mentators, or he mis-states. He tells us that Bishop Newton 
so understands the Arabic Bible. Now Mr. Priest ought to 
know that we do not rely upon the "Arabic Bible" for reve- 
lation. The Hebrew is the language in which Moses wrote, 
guided in the truth taught, by inspiration. Presently JVIr. Priest 
seems to forget himself and says: "the Hebrew says cursed 
be Ham." Now this is not so, and the man either cannot 
read Hebrew, or mis-states. The Hebrew as plainly says 
"cursed be Canaan," as the English does. 

To try to harmonize his assertions with right, and to shovi^ 
that the curse was not upon Canaan alone, he says it would 
be rather hard — "unjust" (is his word) that Canaan, and not 
the other three brothers should be cursed: (see pa. 78). W6 
ask, would it not be as unjust to curse all of Ham's posterity 
for the father's sin, as one? Is injustice dissipated by being 
placed upon twelve men, or a hundred men? 

Again Mr. Priest says. Ham was born with this curse on 
him, — "that he was born a Negro with black skin, wooly 
head, small intellect, low-mindedness, dishonesty, treachery, 
malice — born a Negro with all the physical, moral, and con- 
stitutional traits, which mark and distinguish that race from 
others:" Pa. 33, — "that God superintended the formation of 
the two sons, in the womb of their mother, in a supernatural 
manner, giving these two children" (Ham and Japheth) "such 
forms of bodies, constitutions of natures, and complexions of 
skin, as suited bis will:" Pa. 27. If this imagination be 
true, then we ask, 1. Would not God be the author of sin? 
2. The poor man would have been cursed one hundred and 
one years before he committed the offence, for which Mr. 
Priest says he was cursed. Oh! slavery, are these thy apol- 
ogists? Thou mayest well cry, "save me from my friends." 

Again, Mr. Priest represents the pious old father, as being 
very loth to pronounce the curse upon his son and all his pos^ 
terity — ^"the preordination of their fates as slaves on earth, 
foreordained and appointed to the condition they hold among 
.MR'u, sinking below the ordinary exigencies of moral cxis:*- 



COLOR, 1SJ5 

Hence." — Pa. 80, 83. He says: "When tlie great Patriarch 
was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak as he did on 
that occasion, we have no doubt but he did it with real pain 
and sorrow of heart." But why, if it was right as Mr. Priest 
says it is. Ah, It is plain that the conviction flashes upon Mr, 
Priest himself, that this talk is wrong. Indeed Mr. Priest says 
it is contrary to his "sympathies."-T-He is like a certain Judge 
in our State, who said 'the Bible sanctions slavery, but if he 
was going to make a Bible he should make it different from 
God Almighty;' that is, his sense of Justice was better thaa 
God's; or at least his interpretations of the Bible, Truth is 
consistent with the plain principles of right, but error never 
is. And when we view this passage (Gen. 9: 25) as simply 
a form of prophecy, declaring the curse that would come on 
the coming generation of Canaanites for their own sins, (see 
Deut. 18: 12. Lev. 18: 25,) — the act of Ham being the suggest- 
ing occasion, then all is right and plain. The act of Hezekiah 
(Isa. 39: 6) was the suggesting occasion of the prophecy of the 
future downfall of his kingdom, and subjugation of his children 
—yea, their enslavement: see the context. But was it the 
simple showing of his goods that brought upon the Jews such a 
calamity as their overthrow and enslavement by the Babyloni- 
a,nsl No, it was for the sins — the idolatry of the people And 
because on this occasion it was foretold that the Babylonians 
would thus subjugate them, were the Babylonians justifiable in 
their acts? — They were punished for it. A mere prophecy 
justifies no man, nor set of men, in doing what is foretold, they 
will do: else the Jews were justifiable in crucifying Christ 
— the Egyptians in oppressing the Israelites. Surely the 
reader of Mr. Priest's book will say: Slavery is pressed if it 
has to be sustained by such arguments as his 

FORM — INCLUDING STRUCTURE OF THE HAIR, FEATURES OF 
THE FACE, SHAPE OF THE HEAD, AND FOOT. 

We know in our State, respectable and influential men, 
who, whilst they are ready to admit that difference of color is 
the result of climate, stumble at the structure of the hair of 
the Negro, and other peculiarities of his person. The hair 
oi the Negro is coarse. This is the result also of natural 
causes. It results from the operation of those causes 
which tend to darken the complexion — heat, and excess of 
bilious secretion. There are a thousand demonstrations of 
thi# in other animals. The Beaver taken from Canada to. 



190 FORM. 

liOuisiana, exchanges his soft, warm coat of fur for a thinner 
suit. The Sheep taken from Thibet to Africa, exchanges his 
thick, soft fleece of wool for a suit of hair almost as coarse 
and straight as that of the Camel. So with man, — natare 
adapts herself to the climate he may be in. When, as a 
race, he has staid in that climate so long that his constitution 
is radically changed, then this constitution becomes transmis- 
sible to his posterity, let them he in what climate they may. 
Originally then, the coarseness of the African's hair, is the 
result of nature's effort to adapt him to the hot climate in 
which he was formerly thrown. By exposure of the skin 
to the air and hot sun, it becomes tough, thick, dark and dense 
with excess of bilious secretion. — By this process, the blood 
and internal organs are better protected from the rays of a 
tropical sun. So, also, by the same causes, the hair is made 
coarse, giving space for rapid evaporation, yet enough in 
quantity for shade and shelter, which is made perfect by its 
involution or nappy state. Then instead of his dark skin, 
and coarse nappy hair being a sign of Heaven's curse, it is 
a sign of Heaven's mercy and wisdom, in so forming the 
constitution of man, that it might adapt itself to whatever 
climate it might be thrown in. * It is nature's process to 
protect the system from injury from the direct rays of a 



* Mr. Priest's position is, 'that God foresaw that after the flood the 
climates would be changed, and therefore determined to create two of the 
sons of Noah with constitutions or natures suited for these coming 
climates — the white man Japheth, he made for the cool climate, and 
the black man Ham, for the hot climate.' We remark: 1. They must 
have suffered very much, for they lived one hundred years before the 
flood — before this change of the climate for which they were constitu- 
tionally fitted, and constitutionally unfitted for any other. They must 
ha ve been like fish out of the water. 2. We think poor Shem must 
have been very much neg^leeted; for he was left without this change of 
nature, (according to Mr. Priest, being left like hi? father, a red man) 
and must have suffered very much after the change took place. But in 
despite of Mr. Priest's theory, we find the Shemites living in every 
climate of the habitable globe, and as comfortable and healthy as any 
body. — The white man in the hot country, and the black man in the 
cold country, and as stout and healthful as the white man; and after a 
few generations just as comfortable in it as the white man. The truth 
is this, as has long been known, God has so formed the human constitu- 
tion that it can soon adapt itself to its climate so as to be comfortable 
and healthy. There is no necessity then, for the fabrication of new 
theories uncalled for by nature, and unsustained by facts. 



FORM. 197 

tropical sun. t The coarseness of his hair is also increased 
by the excess of bilious secretion, as we shall see presently 
by a quotation from Biumenbach. 

The next thing which we notice in the hair of the African, is 
its napped, or involved appearance. This is doubtless produced 
chiefly by those secretions peculiar to the black skin; which 
secretions are produced by those natural causes which pro- 
duce the black skin. It is manifest, says Biumenbach, ''that 
there is a strong sympathy between the liver, the labratory of 
the bile, and the skin; and, as the influence of the climate 
upon the secreting powers of the former is very great, it is 
proportionally great on the action of the minute vessels of 
the latter by wliich that matter is supplied to the recticular 
membrane, which becomes there the nutriment of the hair; 
and according to the qualities of this nutriment will the hair 
be affected in its color and other properties." That the 
napped or involved appearance of the hair of the Negro, is 
caused by the secretions peculiar to the black skin, (which 
we have previously shown was produced by natural causes,) 
is manifest also from numerous jacts recorded in medical 
journals. We will mention one referred to by Dr. W. Barton 
of Philadelphia, and recorded in the Medical Repository of 
New York. It is the case of Henry Moss of Maryland. 
He traveled through many of the Middle States, and was 
seen by a great multitude of persons. "He was a deep black 
Negro whose complexion changed to a dear and healthy 
white. This change was accomplished, not immediately, but 
through the lapse of several years. It was not the result of 
disease. He was a very healthy man, and an every day 
laborer. The white made its appearance in spots, and thus 
gradually spread over the whole body, the edges of the black 
clouds fading away insensibly. Those parts of the body 
most exposed to the sun, were slowest in their change; or 
remained black longest. As the white splotches extended 
over the system, they reached the head; and wherever, and 
just as far as the white skin extended, "there the dark nappy 
hair disappeared, and a fine straight hair of silky softness 
succeeded in its room." — Stanhtope Smith. Nothing can 
prove more clearly than this, that hose causes which produced 
the color of the African's black skin, are the chief, if not the 

-|- We often hear it said that the Negro can stand more hot sun than 
the white man. The above facts may account lor it. 



lyi FORM, 

entire cause of the napped appearance of his hair. Another 
fact supporting the above position is this: as the Negroes of 
our country grow hghter in their complexion, their hair be- 
comes less nappy or involved. Again, in those portions of 
Africa, where the climate is cooler, there the complexion of 
the Negro is lighter ; and the hair proportionally straight; — 
showing that climate,* by afTecting the secretions of the skin, 
is one of the grand causes of the napped appearance of the 
hair. When the constitution becomes thus radically changed 
it is transmitted to children. There may be some other nat- 
ural causes which aid in producing the napped, or involve^ 
appearance of the Negroe's hair. " Certain volatile and 
saline secretions tend to involve and curl the hair. V'iscid and 
glutinous matters would produce a like efTect." Then, the 
napped and involved appearance of the hair of the Negro, can 
be accounted for on natural principles and well known facts, 
without the worse than useless theory, 'that they are descend- 
ants of a different race, or that their napped hair is a badge of 
Heaven's curse:' — a position destitute of the sanction of phi- 
losophy or Revelation. 

OFFENSIVE SMELL. 

As we have just made allusion to volatile secretions, we will 
here notice the oflensive smell belonging to some of the Afri- 
cans. This is produced by filthiness of diet, and manner of 
living; as is apparent from the following facts : 

1. Some white men, of our own country, from filthiness of 
diet and manner of living, are as offensive on account of their 
constitutional smell, as any Negro. I know an instance of 
this kind. 

2, The Patagonians of South America, who are only of a 
copper color, are as offensive in their smell as any African. 
* This is caused by their manner of living — feeding on the 
rancid oil of Seals.' 

* Heroditus states that, "Xerxes had in the arniy prepared for tliis 
Grecian expedition, both Oriental (i. e. Asiatic) and African Ethiopians; 
3nd adds, that tliey resembled each other in every outward circumstance, 
except their hair; that of the Asiatic Ethiopians being long and straight, 
while the hair of those of Africa was curled.'' It is climate that made 
tiie difference in the hair of the children of the same family; for the 
Ethiopians were the descendants of Cush. This Mr. Priest himself 
^mits. Yet in different climates the children of the same progenitor, 
differ. 



3. Tlie Africans of the present generation in our country, 
have far less of that smell than their forefathers had. Those 
in the North, who are more cleanly than most of those in the 
South, and whose diet is better, have less of the African smell 
than those in the South. Again, those who are domestics, 
whether they be North or South, who are more cleanly in thier 
persons, and fed upon better diet, are less offensive than field 
hands. Lastly, on this point; there are hundreds and thousands 
of Africans in our country or nation, who are as free from the 
odor as white men. Now, were it true that the African pos- 
sesses a nature different from the white man, and this smell 
one of the characteristics of his nature, then as long as nature 
remained, he could not with any diet, or with any manner 
of living, lose this peculiarity of his nature. But we see he 
may, and does lose it. It is therefore not a part of his nature, 
but brought about originally by certain kinds of diet, and 
modes of Hving. This mode of living was continued by his 
ancestry until it affected his constitution; — this constitution 
was transmitted to posterity, which constitution will remain 
until it is changed by proper diet, and cleanly habits; This 
may require a few generations with some. 

FEATURES OF THE FACE. 

If we all be descended from the same parent<5, it is asked, 
why the thick lips, flat nose, and small round head of the 
African, with small intellectual organs — why so different from 
the white man of Europe and America? 

We answer: this difference may be the result of climate, 
diet, pursuits, state of civilization, modes of Uving, anJ other 
like causes.* That the human system may be greatly changed 
in its form by clirtiate, and other natural causes, is a position 
sustained by a thousand facts. The people of Kamtschatka, 
of Lapland, of the frozen regions of North America, and the 
Northern hordes of Tartars, are all lov/ in stature; heads 
large, — eyes small and weak, — faces broad and sunken, — • 
short necks, and their "hands and feet remarkably diminu- 
tive." Yet some of these chuckle-headed, dish-faced, squint 
eyed, short-necked, little-pawed, China-footed, dark-skinned, 
runty creatures are descended from the same ancestry of 
some of the fairest faces, intelligent countenances, and most 

* Mr. Priest denies this position. But we will bring fads againtt 
his: theoiT. 



200 t'ORM. 

beautiful figures^ of all Europe I ! This differtnce is pro- 
duced by climate, food, and manner of living. Whilst a 
temperate climate contributes to vigor of body, and enlargraent 
of limbs, with regular and full developement of all the parts 
of the body, extreme cold has the opposite effect; and "the 
animal system under the constriction of perpetual frosts, is 
irregularly checked in its growth." Under the operation of 
such causes, the extremities, as the hands and feet, are very 
small; because the circulation there is checked, and very im- 
perfect. The blood, or nutriment, being thrown in upon the 
internal organs and the head, — these are always disproportion- 
ally large. Hence deformity. Also the natural efTort of an 
individual exposed to continual cold, is to shrug up his shoul- 
ders, draw down his neck, squint his eye, protrude his eye- 
brows, compress his mouth, and breathe only through his 
nostrils. Hence by these means the face is shortened, but 
the cheeks become widened; — the eye-brows distended, and 
the eyes apparently sunken. These causes operating con- 
tinually, the features become established — the constitution 
changed. Thus we see the uncomely features, — the grotesqe 
appearance of the Tartar and Laplander, are the result of 
natural causes. And if this Laplander were translated, with 
his wife, to Europe or America, and should these give birth 
to a progeny, this progeny would be in features, Laplanders 
still; and would continue so for generations, until climate, 
civilization, and habits of living should remodel the constitu- 
tion. The above positions are confirmed by another fact, 
which we may take from among a thousand such. It is this: 
those Chinese families who removed into that region of Tar- 
tary, north of the great wall, "in no very long period of time, 
became perfectly assimilated in their figure and aspect to 
the native Tartars." The defection of circulation, and dis- 
tortion of countenance is increased by poverty of diet. Where 
the food is scarce and mean, the blood will be proportionably 
impoverished and limited in circulation. The countenance is 
also distorted where there is hunger, or bodily pain. This 
distortion is not relieved by a national standard of beauty, 
which requires pleasant looks, and grateful smiles, but gener- 
ally, the most hideous appearance is the most desirable to be 
attained by a savage and superstitious people. These causes 
operating continually, the features become established, and 
transmissible to posterity. 



FORM. 



Ui 



In like manner climate and other causes produce the Negrb 
Form and complexion. The natural effort of every man, when 
pressed with heat, as the Africans are in Interior and Western 
Africa, is to leave the mouth open, the lips distended, the 
nostrils extended, or dilated. As a consequence, the lips being 
left distended and swollen by heat, will become thick; and as 
these thicken, and the nostrils dilate, the nose must become 
flat: for, "as the distention of the features in one direction 
naturally tends to produce a correspondent contraction in an-, 
other, the protuberance of the mouth and the turgidness of 
the lips, or any great prominance of the cheek or dilation of 
the face, is comnlonly conjoined with a proportional depres- 
sion, shortening or sinking of the nose." "And almost all 
PEOPLE within the Torrid Zone have the mouth larger, and 
the lips more protuberant than nations within the temperate 
latitudes." Again, in the language of Volney, "The coun- 
tenance of the Negro represents precisely the state of con- 
traction which our faces assume when strongly affected by 
heat; — the eye-brows are knit, the cheeks rise, the eye-lids 
are drawn together and the mouth pouts out. The contrac- 
tion to which the features are perpetually exposed in the hot 
climates of the Negroes, is become the characteristic of their 
countenance." 

This position, thus confirmed alike by philosophers and 
historians, may perhaps receive additional strength by some 
well known facts. There are other causes wliich tend also 
to make difference^of feature, and form; — such as quality of 
food — state of civilization, and modes of living. This is 
supported by facts drawn from the history of other animals. 
"Certain it is that neat cattle, horses and other domestic ani- 
mals, turned into the woods in the West of Carolina, in Lou- 
isiana, and other uncultivated parts of America, where they 
find but a scanty supply of food, and are liable to many acci- 
dents from their feebleness at certain seasons of the year, 
and the want of human care, not only become deformed and 
diminutive themselves, but, although brought back from their 
wild and savage state, and placed in the most favorable cir 
cumstances, will propagate a diminutive and deformed 
offspring for several generations" 

Why should it be thought strange, that climate and certain 
kinds of food and modes of living, should affect the features 
of the face; and indeed the whole constitution of man, when 
we know that there are medicines which affect only, or chiefly. 



202 roRM. 

certain parts of the human system; and that there are cer-' 
lain localities, which induce a certain kind of disease, and 
affect chiefly, one part of the human system? "Buffon assures 
us that the beautiful form of the Barbary horses, soon disap- 
pears when they are transferred to France. The head of 
that animal reared in Naples, assumes very much the con- 
figuration of that of a ram; and in Hungary the under jaw 
is seen to protrude forward considerably beyond the upper" ! 
"In some counties in England the horns of their black cattle 
are remarkably long, and embrace a wide space within their 
curve; in Iceland these cattle are wholly destitute of this 
excrescence." This is attributed only to climate, and modes 
of living. Foster remarks of the dogs of Otahitee, which 
are kept with their hogs and poultry, merely for food, and 
which are nourished chiefly on fruits and roots, the Island 
furnishing little or no game, have become most inactive and 
lazy animals. Their heads grow larger than is common to 
the species; and, in their extreme sluggishness they are hardly 
ever heard to bark, but utter their languid and uneasy feelings 
only in a kind of howling." Here the very form of the dog 
is varied, and the very characteristics of his nature greatly 
changed: and all this by climate, food, and manner of living. 
Manner of living, (including under it pursuits, religions, de- 
grees of civilization) greatly affect the features of the face. 
"The noble or military class in India have been pronounced 
by some travelers to be composed of a different race of men 
from the populace, who are their traders and artizans; because 
the former elevated by their rank above them, and devoted 
only to martial studies and achievments, are distmguished by 
that manly beauty so frequently found united with the profes- 
sion of arms; the latter, poor and laborious, exposed to innu- 
merable hardships and privations, and left, by their laws and 
their religion, without the hope of improving their condition, 
or the spirit to attempt it, have become timid and servile hi 
the expression of their countenance, diminutive, and often 
DEFORMED vi their pcrsous, and markedly a deeper shade 
than their superiors in their complexion.'" It is found by 
observation, that those white men who have been taken in 
infancy, and grown up in the habits of savage life "universally 
contract such a resemblance of the natives in their counten- 
ance, and even in their complexion, as not to be easily distin- 
guished from them; and afford a striking proof that the differ- 
^n<;e of physiognomy depend'^ frreatly on tlio stvJ? of sonety,'' 



FORM. 203 

A. multitude of tacts migint be collected proving that climate, 
food, and modes of living have a powerful influence in mod- 
eling the features of the face, and general form of the body. 
And whether we are able to give the philosophy of these 
variations or not, the existing fad ive cannot deny. How 
often do we meet with white men of our own country, born 
of the same parents, yet from some natural causes before, or 
after they are born, are entirely different from the rest of their 
brothers and sisters in the features of the face, size of the 
body, and strength of intellect: and this pecuharity is trans- 
missible for generations. But does tfiis difference prove 
difference of parentage, or presence of Heaven's curse ? 
Certainly not. 

FORM OF THE HEAD. 

The head of the African or Negro, is said to be small, 
especially in the region of the intellectual and moral faculties. 
Admit this to be true, and it is just what we may expect 
from natural causes — his condition in life. A law of our 
physical nature is, that exercise gives developement and 
strength; and slothfulness, or inactivity, is followed by dimin- 
utiveness and effeminacy. Thus the hand of the idler is 
small and weak; whilst that of the industrious and laboring 
man is large and strong. The same laws govern the head. 
In the case of the African, for unknown centuries, he has 
lived in a state of savagism. Hence but little exercise of the 
moral faculties: — As a consequence we might expect them to 
be small. Living in a tropical climate, where nature provides 
a continuous and bountiful supply of food;, and where little 
or no effort is made for clothing, there is but very little to 
employ the intellectual organs. The animal organs, in such 
a state, would be chiefly employed; and according to another 
law of our nature, and to which we have before alluded, the 
developement of these, would be at the expense of a relative 
diminution of the intellectual and moral organs. Hence we 
may expect in the African that the head in these regions will 
be small. But as these organs have diminished in the case 
of the Western African by neglect, they may be improved 
by exercise: and facts will show that the African is as cer- 
tainly susceptible of improvement in these faculties, as the 
white man, in the same state, or under the same circumstan- 
ces. But more of this hereafter. 



204 FORM, 

That the form of the scull may be materially affected b$r 
climate, state of civilization, pursuits, and modes of living, is 
a position amply sustained, not only by philosophy, but also 
by indisputable facts. There is as much difference between 
the heads of the Laplanders * and some of the present inhab- 
itants of Europe, as there is between the Negro and the same 
Europeans: and yet it is known that these Europeans and 
the Laplanders have the same ancestry — are descendants of 
the same forefathers — "the Huns." The descendants of those 
Chinese, who migrated to Northern Tartary, are as diflerent 
from the residents of China, in the form of their heads, as 
the Negro, and white man of America. And yet these Tar- 
tars and Chinese have the same origin. These facts are against 
the theory of Mr. Josiah Priest. What has produced these 
difTerences? Every man has to admit that they are produced 
by climate, food, and manner of living. Again the descendants 
of those Portuguese who went to Congo in Africa, some three 
centuries since, "have so degenerated in complexion, in the 
figure of their persons, and their habits of living, as to bo 
no longer distinguishable from the native tribes of Hottentots, 
who are among the filthiest, the most Jeformcd and savage 
of mankind " What has changed the Portuguese into "/Ac 
figure'^ of the Hottentot, and made him the most "rfe/brmf d" 
of mankind? It is climate, food, and manner of living. 

Lastly on this point, we know that as the African in our 
own country is made acquainted with moral principle, and is 
called upon to exercise it, and as by acquaintance with science, 
practice of arts, or employment in such pursuits as require ex- 
ercise of the intellect, the moral and intellectual organs become 
proportionally developed; thus proving that there is nothing in 
his nature which hinders him from attaining, in the lapse of 
generations, the same standard of bodily configuration as that 
of the white man. Even now, we know instances in the 
South, of some colored slaves, whose intellectual and moral 
organs are better developed than their m,asters; and if cere- 
bral developments are to be the standard of natural rights, 
then the relations of these masters and slaves ought to be 
changed. If it be said that the skull of the African is thicker 
than the white man, then we answer, that is just what we 
may expect to result from well known, natural causes. The 
gkin, as we have noticed in a previous number, becomes i\\\c\ 

% See page 100. 



KORM. 209 

and toiigli by exposure. So wiili the skull, and all other 
bones of the human system. The skull of the Turk is very 
thin, soft, and white; because the head is wrapped in a turban, 
and worn by a slothful and sensual creature. It is never so 
thick as those nations who leave the head exposed. The 
white man of Europe and America, has his head less exposed 
than the African; hence the skull will not be so thick and 
dark. Historians tell us that "the husbandman, in turning up 
the fields on which the battles of Alexander and Darius were 
fought, could easily distinguish the skulls of the Medes from 
those of the Greeks by their extreme fragility." The Meiles 
9,t that time were, when at home, literally "living in the 
shade," and revelling in voJuptuousness, According to the 
argument of sonie men, this difference of skull ought to prove 
difference of origin, yet as matter of fact we know that their 
origin was the same. The Medes were descendants of Madai. 
The Greeks were descendants of Javan, and Javan and Madai 
were sons of Japl.eth. This difference of skull then is pro- 
duced only by climate and modes of living. 

THE FLAT FOOT. 

The last feature we notice in the physical structure of the 
Africin, is the large flat foot. This too is produced by 
natural causes. The foot and hand, as in the case of 
the Laplander, may become small, as we have seen, by the 
continual application of external, natural causes. It may be- 
come small by the continual application of artificial causes; — 
as the bandages of the Chinese. This may be continued 
until the constitution of the foot shall be changed. This con- 
stitution will be transmitted to the child. 'That the head may 
be affected in the same way, by application of boards and 
bandages, is a position supported by Hippocrates, Aristottle, 
Pliny, Haller and Buffon.' Certain it is that the feet and 
hands may become constitutionally small, by the constant 
pressure of natural or artificial causes. This much is matter 
of historic fact as in the case of the Laplander and others. 
Now the opposite of this is equally true. When the foot is 
continually subjected to labor, and untrameled either by shoes, 
bandages, or the constriction of frosts, the foot will spread out 
and grow large. As in the case of the African, where from 
earliest infancy to old age, the fool never wares a sock or shoe, 
but even while the bones arc young and tender, is continually 
pressed upon hoj eartli and burning sands; we are to expect 



'J0() roKM. 

as a natural consequence that the loot will become flat and 
large. That this is the chief cause, is apparent from the fol- 
lowing facts: 1. In our own country, those persons who go 
bare footed all the spring, summer and fall seasons, find their 
feet spread out to a much larger size, and become more flat 
than those who wear socks and shoes. 2. I know some 
white men whose feet are as flat as any Negroe's, And I 
will shov/ them in Kentucky too, if necessary. I know an- 
other white man, who is a most perfect gentleman in his 
manner — unblemished in his moral and religious character — 
one of the finest scholars in the United States, and justly 
reputable for his talents as an author, yet, his foot is so flat, 
that with the middle of it, he is said "to make a hole in the 
ground as he walks." Docs this prove that he must have 
diflerence of parentage from the rest of white men, or that he 
wears Heaven's curse? Surely then, the policy of graduating 
natural rights according to the shape of the heel, should ever 
be held as the climax of ridiculousness. 

INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY OF THE NEGRO. 

«»Was it not for the idea of the essential superiority of one 
class of men over another, slavery could not long exist." — 
Barnes. 

Some men claim that the Negroes are a difl'erent race from 
the whites, and may be enslaved, because they are inferior in 
intellectual capacity. This decision is generally made by in- 
terested or prejudiced judges, whose fitness to decide, might 
be questioned before their decision is attacked. The decision 
too. is made upon principles woefully defective in logic. — 
These judges reason as though Negroes had enjoyed the 
same advantages which the whites have; whereas the Negroes 
have for centuries been shut up in ignorance, poverty, and 
slavery, whilst the whites have enjoyed the facilities of civil- 
ization, of education, wealth and liberty — causes which will 
always produce distinguishing effects. 

There is no one position more clearly established by facts 
than this: the intellectual capacity of an individual, or a 
people, depends, in a great degree, upon the state of society 
in which they live, — the amount of liberty which they enjoy, 
the facilities for acquiring knowledge; — the peculiar circum- 
stances with which they are surrounded. Thomas Jefferson 
and Stanhope Smith, recognized the truth of this position, 
when they so successfully met the taunt of Raynal. Raynel 



INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY 207' 

taunted the Americans, then, with not having "produced one 
celebrated man." Said Jefferson and Smith, "when 'America 
shall have existed a civiUzed nation as long as Europe, and 
enjoyed the same advantages, she w.ill have celebrated men." 
Said they, "it is not to be expected that, that state of society 
in which men are ranging the forest for game, and pressed 
by incessant wants; or on the other hand, occupied in perpet- 
ual labors in clearing and bringing into a state of cultivation, 
the soil of a now world, should produce such poets as Homer 
or Pope, such philosophers as Aristottle or Locke, or such 
orators as Demosthenese or Chatham." It was the state of 
society that forbade the evolution of genius, or great "men- 
tal capacity." It wss not the want of natural capacity. 
Why is it that Egypt, "the cradle of science," the "masters 
of Greece herself," is now sunk in abject ignorance, a poor,- 
groveling, sensual people, without one star in the world's gal- 
axy of great men? It is the state of society, — the bondage 
of her people; — not want of natural, or original capacity. 
Why is it that Greece, once the "home of genius," is now 
the abode of ignorance, and degradation? "Are the modern 
Greeks of the same race with those republican heroes who 
expelled the Persians from their country, with those illustri- 
ous scholars, among whom Socrates and Plato only shone in 
the first rank? Yes, they are the same people, descendants 
of the same illustrious ancestors. But why is it that we do 
not find among them a Homer, a Demosthenes, a Henophon, 
a Phidias?" It is because they are the "degraded subjects of 
Turkish despothin.'''' Here are facts worthy to be remem- 
bered:— fscts showing that the intellectual character of a peo- 
ple is greatly dependent upon the state of society — facts 
showing that the brightest geniuses may be sunk by despo- 
tism. It is despotism that has degraded the Grecian. It is 
despotism that has, and yet continues to degrade the African. 
The state of society determines in a great degree the intel- 
lectual capacity of a people. Had Jefferson remembered 
this, (a position which he granted in his "notes on Virginia") 
it would have saved him labor and reputation. After having 
admitted that the intellectual capacity of a people, or race, 
will depend in a great degree upon the state of society in 
which they live — "that it is right to make ^reat allowance 
for the difference of condhion, of education, of conversation, 
of the sphere in which they move." Still after this he re- 
proaches the "negro" slaves in our own country, for being 



m 



OF THE NEGRO. 



inferior, not only to the whites, but to the Indians, and slaves 
of Greece and Rome: — yet the condition of all these, was 
more favoi:abIe to intellectual developements, than that of the 
slave of our country. The Indians of America, as Mr. Jef- 
ferson remarks, exhibit some of the finest flights of imagin- 
ation, and some of the boldest strokes of oratory." Yet, 
they are dependent upon the state of society in which they 
live for this: for, says Stanhope Smith, "we perceive these 
vigorous efforts of soul, only while they enjoy their rude in- 
dependence, and are employed in their favorite exercises of 
hunting, or of \Var, which give ardor to their sentiments, and 
energy to their character. Whereas, if you cut them ofT 
from employments vvhich, along with conscious freedom and 
independence, often awaken the untutored savage to the boldest 
enterprizes; if, in this condition you place them in the midst 
of a civilized people with whom they cannot amalgamate, and 
who only humble tliem by the continual view of their own 
inferiority, you, at once, rnnihilate among them all the noble 
qualities which you had admired in their savage state; and the 
Negro becomes a respectable man, compared with the Indian. 
Of the truth of this remark, we have striking examples in the 
remnant of a small tribe in the State of New Jersey, now 
called the Brotherton Indians; and many tribes who wander 
along the banks of the St. Lawrence, within the province of 
Lower canada. Tliey afibrd a proof of the deterioration of 
the mental faculties, which may be produced by certain states 
of society, which ought to make a philosopher cautious of 
of proscribing any race of men, because their unfortunate con- 
dition has presented to them no incentives to awaken genius, 
or afford no opportunities to display its powers." 

In comparing the slaves of America with the slaves of 
Greece and Ronle, Jefferson makes no allowance for the 
"difference that mustexist between enslaved savages, destitute 
of the first elements of liberal knowledge, and held in contempt 
by their oppressors, and an ingenuous and enlightened people, 
cultivated in the schools of philosophy, and practised in all 
the liberal arts, reduced to slavery by force of arms; and, even 
in slavery, respected by their masters? Epictetus was, indeed, 
a philosopher, Terrence and Phoedrus were poets, and many 
t»f the most eminent artists at Rome were slaves; but they 
were philosophers, and poets, and artists before they 
Decame slaves." There is a vast difference in the condition 
of the two classes of slaves:— between a people whose fore- 



INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY 203 

■fathers had enjoyed liberty with its attendant privileges for 
generations, and who themselves had breathed the air of 
liberty until they had ripened into manhood, and whose 
geniuses had been stimulated by reward, by family preferment 
and honour in the nation, there is a diflerence between the 
condition of thesej and a people whose forefathers have been 
kept in bondage, with all its attendant evils, for generations, 
who have been doubly cursed with the slave trade, and the 
vices of Europe; and then the slave fettered from birth to gray 
hairs, by the imbruting laws of American slavery. Can we 
expect genius to flourish under such circumstances? Homer 
said "when Jupiter condemns a man to slavery, he takes 
from him half his mind." 

Every case to which we turn our attention, will but confirm 
the position, that the difference of intellectual capacity of 
nations, depends in a great degree, upon the state of society, 
— the relative advantages for acquiring knowledge, or develop- 
ing intellect. We speak as our opponents do; not of individual 
exceptions to a general rule, but we speak of tribes, of na- 
tions of people. 

Why is it that the present enlightened and refined nations 
of Europe differ from their forefathers? — those ignorant, and 
rude barbarians who had not so much as the "knots quipos of 
Mexieo, or the runick stick of the Scandinavians." Is it 
because they are a different race of people? No, they are 
the same people: but living in a different state of society, fiv- 
ing under a different government, with greater facilities, and 
encouragements to intellectual effort. But does some one ask, 
is the Negro of Africa, the slave of America, susceptible of 
a high state of refinement, and intellectual culture ? We 
answer: Facts prove that he is. We will first decide what 
constitutes a Negro. A black skin does not constitute a man 
a Negro for the Jews in Hindostan are black; and the Arabs 
in the province of Yemin are black. Matted or curled hair 
does not form the distinguishing trait of the Negro: 'for some 
of the Indians of India have curled or matted hair.' Asiatic 
Researches by Francis Wilford, — Quoted by H. Gregoir. 
The distinguishing features of the Negro are generally hiorh 
cheek bones, broad flat nose, thick lips, and with these will 
generally be found a dark skin (varying according to climate) 
and curly or matted hair. With this outline Volney says 
the Copts (who were the original and true Egyptians) agree. 
" They have the same vellowi^h and smoky skin,* a puffed 
A3 



210 OF THE NEGRO. 

up visage, a large eye, flat nose, thick lip, in a word the 
mulatto ligure." "The same observations induced Ledyard 
L to believe in the identity of the Negroes and Copts. The 

ancient Sphynx as examined on the spot by Norden, Niebur, 
Cassas, and since by Volney and Oliver, was pronounced by 
these men to be the tigure of the Ethiopian or black race now 
slaves." H. Gregoir. " These Egyptians," says Gregory, 
"were, in the opinion of many writers, no other than Negroes, 
whose native features were changed and modified by the suc- 
cessive mixture of Greeks, Romans and Saracans." 

1. The first fact we notice is, that this people, the admitted 
descendants of Ham, and decided by travelers and historians 
to have possessed, as early as the days of Heroditus, the 
essential features of the Negro: — "Who were Negroes? — 
these were the first renowned teachers of the arts and sciencs" 
— "the people among whom Pythagoras and other Greeks 
traveled to learn phylosophy." Volney and Oliver conclude 
that to the black race, now slaves, we are indebted for the 
arts and sciences, "and even for speech." See travels of 
Oliver and Volney in Egypt. What makes the black race 
now differ from their ancestors? — It is, (as with the present 
Grecians compared with their Ancestors, the reverses of for- 
tune — the state of society, the limited advontages they enjoy — 
not want, originally, of intellectual capacity. 

2. A second fact showing that the Negro is susceptible of 
a high state of intellectual culture, is, that Negro children in 
schools, have made equal progress with white children, where 
they have had equal advantages. 

Wilberforce, in conjunction with many members of a 
society occupied with the education of Africans, established 
a college at Clapham, near London. H. Gregoir says, "I 
visited this establishment to examine the progress of the 
scholars; and I found that between them and European chil- 
dren, there existed no difference, but that of color. The 
same observation has been made at Paris in the ancient col- 
lege of La Marche, where Coesnon, formerly professor of 
the University, had united a certain number of Negro chil- 

* As the people of this figure and color advance to the Interior or 
AVestern part of Africa, where from local causes the climate is hotter, 
there the cornjilexiou chai'ges Ironi nnilatto to black, niul the hair 
beccmes more matted. 



INTELLECTUAL CAPACITV ^H 

dren. Many members of the National Institute, who have 
also carefully examined this college, and traced the progress 
of the scholars in all the circumstances of life in their partic- 
ular classes, and public exercises, will give testimony to the 
truth of this position." "Again," says the same author, 
"This has been proven at a school in Philadelphia, taught by 
Brissot; — a true republican of rigid probity." The same 
fact has been established at Boston, by Giraud, the French 
Consul there, in a school of four hundred "Negro children." 
The same is now bein? established in Cincinnati, in a school 
conducted by brother Hiram Gilmore. 

Some of our readers will remember to have seen the posi- 
tion confirmed by the remarks of one of the Editors of the 
Watchman of the Valley; and these remarks approved, and 
reaffirmed, by Mr. Fowler, the distinguished Phrenologist of 
the age, in one of his late journals. That the Negroes are 
susceptible of equal mental development with the whites, is a 
position sustained by a host of such names as Ramsay, 
Hawker, Beckford, and H. Gregoir. 

"Wadstrom claimed that the blacks have, in this respect, a 
superiority; and Skipwith, the American Consul is of the 
same opinion." I suppose that equality of mental capacity, 
after the lapse of several generations of mental culture, is 
all that sound philosophy would lead us to expect in them as 
a race. I speak of the race, not of indivividual exceptions. 
If the whites were kept in ignorance for generations, and the 
blacks educated for generations, it would lake generations to 
bring the whites as a race up to the last generation of educa- 
ted blacks. 

3. A third fact proving the intellectual capacity of the 
Negro, is, that a multitude of them have been distinguished 
as scholars, heroes, artists, philosophers, and poets. If there 
were any thing in the nature of the African which made him 
different from, and inferior to the white man, then no one of 
the race could be expected to go beyond nature, and be equal 
to mediocrity of whites. But we shall see there is no such 
impediment in his nature. 

Tertullian was a native African; yet, " one of the most 
learned men of the primitive church;" and "one of the most 
eloquent defenders of the doctrines of Christianity." He was 
the author of many valuable works. 

St. Augustine was an African. — Born A. D. .354, at To- 
gasta, a city of Numidia, in Africa. Says Mosheim, "a- 



212 or THE XKGRO. 

variety of great and shining qualities were united in the 
character of that illustrious man." He was at an early age 
elecied professor of Rlietoric at Milan. There he became a 
Christian, and was sof)n made Bishop of Hippoo, in Africa. 
"He became one of the most celebrated fathers of the church, 
whose writings for many centuries, had almost as potent an 
influence on the religious opinions of Christendom, as those of 
Aristotlle, exercised over philosophy." He was a man not 
only of scholarship that made him a reputable critic and ex- 
pounder of the Scriptures, but a man of vigorous intellect, 
and active piety, that enabled him to do more than falls within 
the capacity of most men. Besides the labors of a pastor 
and of a bishop, "the hearing of the cases of hundreds that 
crowded his house," he left on record, "two hundred and 
seventy-two treaties on dilTerent subjects." 

"Anthony William Amo, born in Guinea, in Africa, was 
brought to Europe, wehie he was educated by the Princess of 
Brunswick. He embraced the Lutheran religion, pursued 
his studies at Hull, in Saxony, and at Wirtemburg, and so 
distingushed himself by his good conduct and talents, that the 
rector and council of the University of the last mentioned 
town, thought themselves obliged to give a public testimony 
of these, in a letter of felicitation." Amo skilled in the 
knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, delivered with 
success, private lectures. on philosophy, which are highly 
praised in the same letter. In a syllabus, published by the 
Dean of the pliilosophical faculty, it is said of that learned 
Negro, that having examined the systems of ancients and 
moderns, he selected and taught all that was best of them. 
Li 1744, he was made a doctor at Wittemburg. He there 
published a dissertation on the "absence of sensation." — 
"Was fond of abstruce studies." " Li a letter which the 
President addressed to him, he is named vir nobillisme et 

CLARISSIME." 

'Thomas Fuller, an African slave in Virginia, possessed one 
of the most remarkable minds for facility and accuracy of cal- 
culation, ever known in the United States.' 

"James Derham, originally a slave at Philadelphia, was 
sold to a physician, who gave him a subaltern employment 
as a preparer of drugs. — Was again sold to Dr. Dove of New 
Orleans — Learned in languages, he spake with facility En- 
glish, French, and Spanish. In 1788, at the age of twenty- 
pne years, he became tlie niQst distinguished physician at 



INTELLKCTIAL C'ArACirY 213 

New Orleans." ''I conversed witli him on medicine,*' says 
Dr. Rush, "and found him very learned. I thought I could 
give him information concerning the treatment of diseases, 
but I learned more from him than he could expect from me." 
H. Gregoir, Page 182. 

Hannibal was an African, a native of Carthage, a city in 
Numidia. He was one of the most skilful Generals that ever 
lived. Rome never met such an enemy — one she so much 
dreaded. His skill in Generalship, was equalled only by his 
intrepid valour, his undaunted courage. 

Touissant Louverture was a negro, he had worn the chains 
of slavery for a time in St. Domingo. He, with Raymond, 
the Mulatto, associate of the National Institute, formed a 
democratic constitution for St. Domingo." "His bravery, and 
that of Rigard cannot be contested, for it had been displayed 
on many occasions. Said another writer. "Touissant, at the 
head of his army is the most active and indefatigable man of 
whom we can form an idea. His great sobriety, the faculty, 
which none but he possesses, of never reposing, the facility 
Avith which he assumes the affairs of the Cabinet after the 
most tiresome excursion, of answering daily a hundred letters, 
and of habitually tiring five Secretaries, render him so superior 
to all those around him, that tlieir respect and submission are 
in most individuals carried even to lanaticism." Napoleon 
was probably not his superior in any respect. We might 
speak of the consummate skill, the martial bravery of Mentor, 
John de Bolas, Cudjoe, Orouoke, Oge, Henry Diaz, "who is 
extolled in all the history of Brazil," of Alexander Dumas,-' 
named by Bonaparte, the Horatius Coeles of the Tyrols." 

The negroes have intellecrual capacity by which they \vould 
be successful in the useful arts, and in the science of govern- 
ment. "Bosman, Bron, Barbet, Holben, James Lyn, Kiernan, 
Dalrymple, Towne, Wadstrom, Falconbridge, Wilson, Clark- 
son, Durand. Stedmand, Mungo Park, Ledyard, Lucas, 
Houghton, Horneraan; all of whom were acquainted with the 
blacks, and having lived among them in Africa, give testimony 
of their talents and industry. Examine the authors we have 
cited: from the general history of voyages by Prevot, and the 
Universal History, the production of an English author, and 
the narrative of depositions made at the bar Parliament; all 
speak of the dexterity with w-hich negroes tan and dye leather, 
prepare indigo and soap, make cordage, fine tissue, excellent 
pottery ware, altiiough ignorant of the turning machine, arras 



214 OF THE NEGRO. 

of white metal, iiistiumeiits of agriculture, and curious works 
in gold, silver, and steel. They particularly excel in filigrane 
work. One of the most striking proofs of their talents in this 
line, is their method of constructing their anchor for a vessel." 
Dickson knew among them jewelers and skilful watch- 
makers, "In reading Winterbotom, Ledyard, Lucas, Hough- 
ton, Mungo Park, and Horneman, we find that the inhabitants 
of interior Africa, are more virtuous and civilized than those 
of the coasts. * In the industrious race of Accas, who occupy 
a fertile promontary of Cape Verd, they have an organized 
republic. The Foulahs have a large kingdom with populous 
towns. In Temboo, Labys, and almost all the town of the 
Foulahs and in the Empire of Banon, there are schools. — 
"Barrow describes the Barolons as advanced in civilization, 
who have no idea of slavery, and among whom are great towns,, 
where diflerentarts flourish." 

Theinhabitantsof Sierra Leone and Liberia are negroes; 
yet have proven to the world, not only that they can advance 
in intellectual culture and civilization, but also in the science 
of government. Seldom do we hear a colonization speech in 
our own country without hearing of the intellectual and moral 
virtues of Governor Roberts of Liberia, who is a negro, 
extolled in the highest manner. The Sovereigns of Europe, 
or the Governors of our own republican States are scarcely 
considered his superiors. The colonists are held up as a law- 
abiding, virtuous, and prosperous people. Query: Could not 
this same people be law-abiding, virtuous, and intelligent in 
America? There is surely nothing in the climate, soil, or 
atmosphere, that would prevent them. There is nothing to 
hinder them, that I can see, but slavery and an unholy 
prejudice. 

* It is the slave trade, and the vices introduced by Europeans and 
Americans, which make the Africans along the coast so vicious and 
degraded. They are not so in the interior. Proyatt, in his history of 
Loango says, "if the negroes, who inhabit the coasts, and who associate 
with Europeans, are inclined to fraud and libertinism; those of the 
interior are humane, obliging, and hospitable."' 'Doctor Newton says 
the negroes on the Gaboon, are the best race of men that exists." — 
Ledyard says the same of the Foulahs, whose government is paternal. — 
•'Adanson, who visited Senegal, in 1754, and who describes this country 
as an Elysium, found the negroes very sociable, obliging, hiunane, and 
hospitable; their amiable simplicity, says he, recalled to me the idea of 
the primitive race of man: I thongnt I saw the world in its infancy." 
Oh'- it is sla^■ery that has degraded the poor African. 



INTKLLECTUAI. CAtACITV 213 

Judge Bullock, in his late address before tbe Colonization 
Society of Kentucky, has told us why it is that tlie colored 
man in our country is depressed intellectually and morally. 
The Judge says, "/?e (the African) is oppressed," The mo- 
tives to exertion, and the rewards of virtuous ambition are 
dinied him. His pride of character is sapped at the root, and 
has nothing to sustain it. Tell me not that the cause is 

TO BE FOUND IF THE INFERIORITY OF HIS NATURE. That 

nature is the gift of God, endowed with the capacity and 
cloihed widi all the attributes of man. * «• * * * 

This truth is indellibly inscribed upon the page of history. 
Carthage, (in Africa,) once disputed with Rome the supremacy 
of the woild. The rugged and snow-clad summit of the 
Alps, no less than the sunny plains of Italy, has been rendered 
classic ground by the impetuous valor of her sons. Neither 
the wise and skilful retreat of a Fabius, nor the heroic firmness 
of a Scipio, could save the Roman legions from the bold 
assaults of Numidian and Carthagenian valor. In boldness 
and intrepidity of character, in indomitable courage, in mihtary 
genius and commercial enterprise, Africa chalenges a com- 
parison with the proudest nations of antiquity. She too, was 
once the seat of science. That now dark and benighted land 
has given to the world the illustrious names of a TurtuUian, a 
Cyprian and an Augustine." Did space allow, we might 
speak farther of the poetic genius of Beronicus, Bloomfield the 
plowman, Capitein, Francis Wilharas, PhiUis, Wheatly, and 
Hubert Pott, "the father of eligiac poetry in Holland." We 
might speak of the eloquence of Othello, of Ignatius Sancho, 
and of a number of negroes now living. But enough has 
been shown, to convince any unprejudiced mind that the 
negroes have capacity for the highest mental and moral 
improvement. Only free this capacity from the causes 
which now weigh it down, and it will soon develope itself. — 
Not more certainly will the bursting germ shoot into a 
magestic and beautiful tree, when the rock or matted sod is 
moved from off it, than will the soul of the negro shoot into 
intellectual and moral greatness, when freed from the incubus 
of slavery, and the withering blight of unholy prejudice^ — 
This will yet be done by the power of truth, and a heaven-born 
Christianity. 

Lastly, if intellectual capacity is to be the standard of liberty, 
then every man who has less intellectual capacity than another, 
must become the slave of his supcriour; and many of those 



yi6 DF THE NEGRO. 

who arc now mn.sters and mistresses must become slaves, to 
some of those Alricans whom they hold now in bondage. 



B. 

ARBITRARY DIVORCE NOT SANCTIONED UNDER THE MOSAIC 
ECONOMY. 

Facts prove that in our efforts to remove slavery, as in all 
other moral reforms, we should not only appeal to the interests 
of men, but chiefly and directly, to their consciences — show 
them that slaveholding is a sin which should not be practiced 
for a single day: and if knowingly and deliberately persisted 
in, must "exclude the soul from Heaven." 1 Cor. vi. 10. 

Also, facts prove that the church has an untold power in 
correcting public sentiment, in establishing the standard of 
right; and if the world shall be brought to regard any practice 
as wrong, as sinful, the church must treat it — discipline it as 
such. What she sanctions, lives. What she casts off — 
condemns by faithful, consistent, and persevering effort, dies 
away. Now, when we call upon the master to let the op- 
pressed go free, and thus cease from sin: and when we call 
upon the church to reftise her sanction or tolerance of slavery, 
we are met with the reply, that "God in former times per- 
mitted men, and Christians too, to practice arbitrary divorce, 
concubinage, and slavery; and if slavery was not sin then, it 
is not sin now." 

Much of the teaching of the present age, allows the people 
to draw such conclusions. 

Many, even of those who are anti-slavery men, teach that 
God did tolerate, under the Mosaic economy, arbitrary divorce, 
concubinage, and slavery; yet, say they, he inculcated princi- 
ples which were designed, eventually, to wear out these sins. 
Thus Wayland, in his letters to Dr. Fuller, says: "we know 
full well that poligamy and divorce are wrong, that they 
violate the obligations established by God between the sexes, 
and are transgressions of his positive law; yet these sins 



ARBITRARY DIVORClJ. 2l7 

Mrere not forbidden by Moses* He only permitted them, 
and modified some of their worst features. He, however, 
did not leave the subject here. He inculcated such principles 
as would, by appealing to their reason and conscience, gradu- 
ally abolish these abuses." Hence, he says, 'The Prophets 
rebuked their countrymen for their practice of these very 
wrongs permitted by Moses.' The reader is ready to say, 
the prophets would not be likely to succeed in removing these 
sins, if the Jew really believed, as Dr. Wayland, that these 
sins were really permitted by the greatest of all prophets, 
Moses. 

Barnes, in his late work on slavery, speaking concerning 
it under the laws of Moses, says, "it is not absolutely certain 
that it could have been entirely prohibited with ease, and we 
know that some things were tolerated under his system, which 
were not approved,'''' p, 114. By these "some things," he 
means arbitrary divorce and poligamy, which he laljors tor 
prove were tolerated by JMoses, and so was slavery, he con- 
cludes. 

Speaking of arbitrary divorce, he says; " the Mosaic ar- 
rangement tolerated divorce, it would seem, to any extent, 
and made the continuance of the marriage relation depend 
wholly on the pleasure of the husband," p. 167. Concern- 
ing concubinage he says; Moses allowed an institution which 
he found already in existence, to be continued on account of 
the hardness of the hearts of the people. The same was 
manifestly true in regard to slavery." Aside from this con- 
cession, Avith a similar one in his New Testament argument, 
we consider his book a storehouse of valuable facts and truths. 
But this concession, wherever found, we consider a great 
practical defect in the arguments of those who call themselves 
anti-slavery men.t Whether the inference should be drawn 

* The italics and capitals are made by the author. The words are 
the words of Dr. Wayland. 

f William Hague, speaking of the concession of Dr. Wayland, 
"that the New Testament does not contain a direct precept prohibitory 
of slavery, but inculcates ^m(n}j/ps which will gradually wear it away,' 
says: "After such a concession, we cannot conceive it to be within the 
scope of human intellect, to impart to the scriptural argument against 
slavery, an appearance of great strength. To §:ive it force and poignancy 
to direct it with quickening and commanding energy to the conscience 
of the slaveholder, is impossible." I know that facts confirm the tVuth 
of thp remark 

B2 



i218 AkBITRARY DIVORCE. 

or not, as mailer of fact, ministers and people do still say, "if 
it was not sin then, it is not sin now. If it could be tolera- 
ted then, it can be now. The time has not come yet for 
action; we must tolerate it, and content ourselves with preach- 
ing ;)rincjp/es And so the ministers in Kentucky for the 
last fifty years have been preaching principles. But instead 
of their principles banishing slavery, slavery is banishing 
them, and their principles too. And thus we believe it will 
continue to be, until the friends of moral reform show that 
God's word never did, and does not now tolerate wrong" — 
"transgressions of God's positive law." If we can show 
that arbitrary divorce and poligamy were not sanctioned, we 
shall greaUy weaken the argument that slavery was tolerated 
or sanctioned. 

ARBITRARY DIVORCE. 

This, as we have seen, is supposed to have been allowed 
under the Mosaic economy. This inference is drawn from 
our present version of Deut. xxiv. 1-4; and from a supposi- 
tion that Christ taught that divorce, for other causes than that 
of adultery, was allowed or permitted by Moses. From 
Deut. xxiv. 1 to 4 inclusive, it is first inferred, that a permis- 
sion was given to the husband to put away his wife, if some 
quarrel had been kicked up, or some defect found in the 
person, or disposition of the wife: and second, that a permis- 
sion was granted to the woman to go and marry another man , 
which last permission, say they, might not be given, unless 
the first marriage tie was recognized as being lawfully and 
rightfully dissolved by the divorce. Now let us read the text 
as it stands in the original Hebrew, — as it was written by 
Moses. "If a man shall select a wife, and marry her, (or go 
in to her, as is the original,) and it comes to pass that no favor 
to her is found in his eyes, because in her is found some mat- 
ter of ofTensiveness; and he gives to her (or shall give to her; 
not 'let him give to her' *) a writing of divorcement and places 
it in her hands, and sends her from his house, and she goes 
forth from his house, and goes and becomes one to another 
man, (or a wife,) and her latter husband hate her, and gives 
to her a writing of divorcement, and puts it into her hands, 

* Prtttor kal, may not be used in an imperative sense, only when it 
is preceded by an imperative I'orm, [see Stewart's Hebrew Grammar § 
r)i)3 (F) ] which is not the casein the above coimcction. 



ARBITRARY DIVORCE. 5419 

and she is setit from his house; or it' the latter husband shall 
die, which took, her to wife, her first husband, which sent 
her away, shall not take her again to wife, after that she is 
defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord: and thou 
shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy Godgiveth 
thee for an inheritance." Here the reader will observe, there 
is no permission given to the husband to put away his wife. 
Nor is there a permission given to the wife to go and marry 
another man, even if the husband has put her away; but 
simply a declaration of what shall be the consequences, if the 
husband, from the hardness of his heart does do so. 

L He shall not have the privilege of living with her again, 
if she dees marry a second man. 

2, He shall not cause the land to sin; i. e. practice in the 
land the double sin of having occasioned the woman to be- 
come an adulteress, (see Mark x. 12,) and then living with 
one who is an adulteress, and thereby "defiled." * That the 
woman became "defiled" by marrying the second man, when 
she was really yet the wife of the first, (the divorce being con- 
sidered by Moses as not a justification to either of the parties) 
is clear: for if the wife was not guilty of any form of forni- 
cstion,t and the husband might, by the law of Moses, divorce 
her for some defect of body, or mind, or mere disaffection of 
the husband, and if this could dissolve the marriage relation 
so that either party, without sin, might go and marry again, 
then the woman could not become defiled by so doing. If 
the divorce was recognized by Moses as lawful, and as put- 

* Since the above was written, I have received a private letter from 
Professor Stowe, in which, so far as we can understand each other by let- 
ter, he approves the above exposition; and thinicing it no wrong to him, 
and that his known ability in exposition of original Hebrew, may give 
weight to what I think is God's truth, I append his words: "Your idea of 
the text in Deut. xxiv. 1-4 is tlie correct one. In the language of the 
critics, the first three verses are the protasis and the fourth is the apodasis, 
just as you suppose. Such is the decision of Rosenmuler, the most 
learned of commentators, and so the passage is translated by De Wette, 
the most accurate and skillful of translators. As you correctly observe, 
the words in the first three verses are indicative praster, and not to be 
translated in the imperative sense."' 

j The Greek word porneia which in Math. v. 32, and xix. 9, is ren- 
dered fornication, is a term of ''general import, and may be used to des- 
ignate all illicit sexual connexion, like our word lewdness or licentious- 
ness, and may include adultery;"' as seen in Cor, v. 1, 



220 ARBITRAL V DIVORCE. 

ting them back where they were before they were first mar- 
ried, then marrying the second husband could no more defile 
her than marrying the first. Or, if the divorce had been re- 
garded as lawful and putting the woman in the condition of a 
widow (as when Ruth married Boaz) then she could not have 
been defiled by her second marriage. But we are told in the 
text that she ivas defiled; which fact proves that she was 
really and truly the wife of the first husband when she mar- 
ried the second — that the divorce was not regarded by Moses 
as dissolving the marriage relation any more then than now: 
and being really the wife of the former husband when she 
married the second, she committed adultery, (Mark x. 12; 
Math. V. 32,) and thus became defiled. How will you, reader, 
account for the defilement in any other way? Do you say 
the uncleanness or ofiensiveneSs spoken of in the first verse 
■was sexual uncleanness? — Some form of fornication? Then 
we answer, 

1. The Hebrew word used to designate it, is not that which 
is generally used to designate fornication or adultery. 

2. If it was, then you yield the point of controversy: for 
then the condition of divorce was the same, under the Mosaic 
dispensation, as under the Christian. But your claim is that 
Moses allowed divorce for things for which it is not allowed, 
under the Christian dispensation; and that it would be sinful 
to allow divorces for such causes now. 

And again, as the advocate of divorce, you claim that this 
woman whom you now say was an open and acknowledged 
fornicator, ha(' by the same statute, a permission equal to that 
of the husband to go and marry another man. — That is, she 
might be put away by one husband, for the crime of fornica- 
tion, and then, notwithstanding the existence of the same 
fault, for which she is divorced from one, she has a permit to 
go and marry another. We want to know how much better 
ofl^, would the latter husband be, than the former? And would 
crime on the part of the woman, be destroyed by repetition? 
All of these inconsistencies show that wrong inferences have 
been drawn from our present version of the passage in Deut. 
xxiv. 1-4; and that the only true and consistent way of ex- 
plaining the passage is, that the woman was wronglly put out 
of the house of the hard-hearted husband, and that the divorce 
was to him no acquittal from guilt, nor a dissolution of the 
marriage relation to her; and being yet truly the wife of the 
first husband, she, by marrying a second, committed adulteryj 



ARBITRARV DIVORCE. 221 

slnd thereby became defiled; and as such defilement might 
not be perpetuated or tolerated in the land, the law Ibrbade 
the first husband to take her again, however great might be his 
desire to do so. This text then contains no permission to 
the husband to practice arbitrary divorce. On his part it was 
always sinful. 

This position is clear, from our Saviour's teaching to the 
Pharisees as recorded in Math. v. 32; xix. 3-9; Mark x. 
2-12. Here he shows, 

1. Marriage is an institution of God, founded upon nature 
(see Math. xix. 4, 5.) "From creation they were made 
male and female that they might become one flesh." This 
relation being founded upon nature, and not merely a creature 
of positive law, "let no man," not even Moses himself, "put 
asunder," save for that act which breaks the marriage cove- 
nant, by making the husband or wife on with another man or 
woman. — See 1 Cor. vi. 16. This being true, if the oflence 
spoken of inDeut. xxiv. 1, was sexual uncleanness, illicitinter- 
course, then divorce under the law of Moses, was for the same 
cause, as under the christian dispensation. If the unclean- 
ness or offensiveness spoken of, was only some defect of 
body or mind, in the eye of the husband, then it was unjustifi- 
able in him to do so, for marriage being founded upon nature, 
the positive precepts of Moses, nor of any other man, could 
ever make a natural wrong, right. "Moses could not make 
a law direcdy opposite to the law of God." — (Cntden.) And 
hence, if a divorce was permitted, it was for some other cause, 
such as the protection of the wife and prevention of defilement 
in the land; and not that it was lawful or right in the husband 
to violate a natural relation to gratify some whim or prejudice 
of his. 

2. Our Saviour tells us, if a man does put away his wife 
for any other cause than that of fornication, and marries 
another, he committeth adultery. (Marh x. 11.) And if the 
■woman shall go and marry another husband, she likewise 
commits adultery. Mark x. 12. Then, as adultery is a viola- 
tion of a natural relation, il never could have been made right 
by a positive precept. Then the passage in Deut. xxiv. 1, 2, 
could never have been designed to be a permission to either 
the husband of wife, to go and marry again, whilst each 
were living — no form of fornication having been committed. 

3. Our Saviour says, this divorce "was suffered" (just as 
drunkenness was suffered, without any approbation from God 



222 ARBlfRAUY DIVORCE. 

or Moses) "because oi the hardness of your Itear/s.'" Matii. 
xix. 8. Here notice, the Saviour does not admit the declara- 
tion of the Pharisees, that "Moses commanded to give a 
writing ot" divorcement, and to put her away," but he simply 
says Moses suffered you to do so, (just as God suffers men 
to get drunk now) because of the hardness of your hearts;'^ 
by these words, charging home on them criminality for doing 
so. Divorce for any cause, save that of the various forms 
of fornication, always was, as we believe, wrong; and never 
sanctioned any more by the laws of Moses, than by the Chris- 
tian, or New 'J'estament precepts. 

Some will suppose that the institution originated with 
Moses, and that he, at least prescribed the manner in which 
men should put away their wives, provided they, in the hard- 
ness of their hearts, should determine to do so. To this we 
reply: 

1. From Lev. xxi. 14; — "The high-priest shall not take a 
divoix-ed woman;" and from Lev. xxii. 13; Numbers xxx. 9, 
it appears that the custom was already in existence, and had 
been practised, perhaps for ages previous to the giving of this 
statute. And the passage here no more prescribes, as a 
statute, the manner in which a divorce shall be given, than the 
passage in Exod. xxii. 2, 3, prescribes the manner in which 
men should steal, provided they would steal. All that the 
law did in the latter case, was to declare that "if a thief should 
steal by breaking into a house, by day, or by night, certain 
consequences should follow: and all that the law does in this 
statute, as found in Deut. xxiv. 1 — 4, is to declare, that if a 
man shall divorce his wife, then certain consequences shall 
follow, and certain requirements shall be made. 

2. If the passage be considered as fixing at least the manner 
in which men should put away their wives, provided they 
would do it, this requirement was no permission or tolerance 
to the husband in putting away the wife: but, 

(1.) It would operate as a restraint upon divorce, by requir- 
ing a process tedious, and attended with trouble and expense. 
A lapse of time would thus be requisite, in which the husband 
might reflect and repent. 

(2.) It would stay the progress of adultery in the land. — 
The husband could not momentrily drive one wife from his 
house — go any marry another, and then, when his anger was 
over, if she had married a second husband, he could not live 
again with her husband — go to anotlier man, and marry him 



ARBlTRARr DIVORCE. 223 

upon a mere deL-laration, that she was divorced. A writing 
of divorcement was necessary. 

3. By this means, greater security would be given to the 
innocent wile of a cruel, and hard hearted husband; — because, 
by requiring a bill of divorcement to be given to her, she 
would be freed from his authority or power; and thus her 
person and property would be preserved from the hard hearted 
wretch. The passage then, instead of being a permission 
to the husband to gratify his "hardness of heart," would be 
a civil enactment, by which the wife might be protected from 
violence. Many think this was the chief object of the civil 
enactment; just as the civil law may now, for tlie safety of the 
wife, grant a divorce from a cruel man. Yet, this require-' 
ment from the hnsband, and permission to the wife, as an 
act of the civil government, would not for a moment sanction 
the unkind treatment or the driving away, by llie liardhearted 
husband. Plausible as is this view, we like the former best. 
With either view, tlie passage under consideration did not 
justify any man in practising arbitrary divorce. 

POLYGAMY. 

Poligamy also, is supposed to have been tolerated by God 
among the Patriarchs, and under the jMosaic economy. This 
is inferred, 

1. From God's silence ("so far as the record goes") in res- 
pect to the sin, among the Patriarchs — his communion with 
ihem, and blessing upon them. In reference to all these, we 
simply remark that Abraham and Isaac lied to Abimalech 
(Gen. 20: 2. 26: 7). Jacob practiced deception, falseliood, 
and extortion (Gen. 27: 19. 25: 27-34); yet God, "so far as 
the record goes", said nothing about these sins — communed 
widi, and blessed each, and all of them. The argument is 
therefore, just as good for lying, fraud, and extortion, as for 
poligamy. 

2. Certain passages of Scripture are adduced to prove that 
poligamy was tolerated by Moses; as Exod. 21: 7-10. "If 
a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not 
go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master, 
who hath betrothed her to hirnseff" (not married yet, only 
betrothed) "then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto 
a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt 
deceitfully with her. And if he hath betrothed her unto his 
f?on, he shall deal with her after the manner of dauahti^rs. If 



224 POLYGAMY. 

he take him another ivlfe, her food, her raiment, and her duty 
of marriage, shall he not diminish." This passage, as we 
conceive, has no reference whatever to the question of polyg- 
amy. It was a law made simply for the protection of the 
rights of any poor female, whose father had sold her services 
until she was of age: when, as the context shows (for she was 
betrothed to him) she was to be married to the man who 
bought her, or to his son. "Her purchase as a maid-servant," 
says Bush in his comment, "was her espousal as a wife." 
And he then adds a quotation from Jarchi: "He is bound to 
espouse her to be his wife, for the money of her purchase is 
the money of her espousal." This is established by the text; 
for in it the purchaser is said to have betrothed her to himself. 
If when she attained to the age for marriage, the purchaser 
failed to carry out his pledge of betrothal, lie should not have 
the liberty to sell her away to a stange nation where her reli- 
gious privileges would be cut ofl"; nor had he the privilege 
to sell lier to any other man of his own nation, for if he failed 
to marry her, then he was to "let her be redeemed"; or as 
it is in the original, "cause her to be redeemed." Now with 
this view, the law is a humane one, reflecting honor upon God 
its author, who loves his poor. But suppose we construe it 
as the advocates of polygamy do, and say the poor girl had 
been used for a while by the master as a wife (in the sense of 
sexual intercourse, as they construe the phrase "duty of 
marriage,") and then she is redeemed or sent back to her 
poor father, a poor outcast upon the world, robbed of her 
character — of that in a virgin which would make her desira- 
ble as a companion to another — would this be consistent with 
the merciful character of God, and that vigilance which he 
has ever manifested for the protection and happiness of his 
poor? Would he enact laws, frame institutions which should 
thus sacrifice the happiness and welfare of poor innocent 
females to the whims and lusts of men? Such constructions 
though often innocently made, are, as we believe, perversions, 
and not interpretations of God's Holy word. Nor may it be 
inferred that this purchaser had a son and therefore a wife at 
the time he betrothed the girl. For first, the inference is 
equally plausible that if he had a son, he had not at that time 
a wife, but wanted one. It is mere assertion to say he had. 
And second, as the law was made for all Jews it is fair — in 
accordance with frequent Bible usage, to infer that the word 
he," represents a Jew — any Jew; who, as a singrle man. 



POLVGAMt. -i25 

should see a young female whom be should like to have for a 
wife, when she should be marriageable. And the word "he'* 
used in the ninth verse refers to another Jew, who should buy 
one for his son. But if the word he represents the same 
person in the several verses, still it does by no means follow 
that he had two wives at the same time. And so in the tenth 
verse: the word "he" may appropriately represent any Jew 
who should betroth a female, and then disappoint her in not 
marrying her. He was bound to find her food and raiment, 
and a home. And if the word "he" refers to the son, as 
Barnes supposes, then if when he comes to act for himself if 
he refuses to marry the one betrothed to him by his father, 
and takes another, * or different person to be his wife, then 
the father was still bound to treat her "after the manner of 
daughters" — to give her food, raiment, and a home. If he 
do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free with- 
out money: that is, in none of the above cases shall the pur- 
chaser have any claim on her because of the purchase money 
paid. This would increase the facilities of her redemption, 
or of her marriage, as no dowry would have to be paid. That 
the Hebrew word avonah, a form of which is here rendered 
duty of marriage, means here, a home, a dwellidg place, is 
clear; for, as Mr. Barnes admits, it is derived from a verb 
(avoon) which means to rest, to dwell; and the noun 
means a living together, cohabitation. But in \^hat sense 
are we to understand cohabitation? We answer as the con- 
text evidently demands (and is better authority thati Gesenius) 
as having a home in the same house — "after the manner of 
daughters", and not sexual intercourse. If the case be that 
of a father who had bought a young female for his son, and 
the son does not marry her, but marries another, then the 
father was to give her food, clothing, and a home — a support, 
and privilege to dwell in his house. If the case be that of 
one who was a single man, having no home or family, and he 
failed to marry the maid, then he should cause her to be 
redeemed. If you insist that it was the son that had to take 
care of her, then we answer it does not affect the argument; 
for he is bound only to give her food raiment, and a home — 

* There is no word in the original which may be translated "wile.' 
This is supplied or inserted by our translators, as is indicated by being 
written in Italics. And therefore, nothing can be drawn from the 
•woxcl wife, to shew that the man had two wives at the same time, 
C2 



$26 rOLVGAMV. 

a place to dwell in; and not sexual intercourse. If the latter 
were his privilege, then so soon as he should be displeased 
with her, she might be cast out a poor out cast, without home 
or character; and instead of this being a humane law, it would 
be the vilest oppression, that sacrifices the character and hap- 
piness of a poor female, to the whims and lust of a vile man. 
The other view suits the context, and reflects glory upon God 
in providing for his poor. 

The next passage relied upon in defence of polygamy, is 
Deut. 31: 15, 16. "If a man have two wives, one beloved, 
and another hated and they have borne him children, both the 
beloved and haled; and if the first-born son be her's that was 
hated: then it shall be when he maketh his sons to inherit 
that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the 
beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which indeed 
is the first-born." From this passage it is inferred by some 
that the father had two wives at the same time, and the fact 
that the law regulates the rights of both sets of children, with- 
out saying any thing, in this place, about the wrong of polyg- 
amy, is evidence that it was designed to be tolerated, and not 
wrong in the father to practice it. We remark: 

1. There is no positive evidence but that one wife was 
dead, and after her death another one more loved was taken. 
Or, that the first one because of the hardness of the heart of 
the husband, had been divorced, and another taken. And 
in case a man should do thus wrong, the right of promogeni- 
turo should not be taken away from the first-born. 

2. If it were even admitted that the father had done wrong, 
and violated the seventh commandment, the fact that a law 
was made guarding the right of the first-born against the whim 
of a partial father, is no evidence that his polygamy was sanc- 
tioned. The law in our own land, provides that in case a 
man shall marry a woman — have by her children, and then 
because he shall like some other woman better, and have 
children by her — the law provides that the children of the first 
wife, shall be the lawful heirs of his property. And the fact 
that the law guards the rights of the first-born, without saying 
any thing about the father's polygamy, is no evidence that it 
was designed to sanction, or even tolerate his polygamy. 
Especially will this position seem forcible when we remember 
that there was a previous law (Exod. 22: 29,) which required 
'he first-born son to be consecrated to the Lord. To him 
was to go the family name, authority, and a double portion of 



POLYGAMY. 227 

goods. — Deut. 21: 17. To guard this right, was ihe above 
law instituted, saying nothing about polygam3% — whether it 
was sin, or something that might be allowed. The protection 
of the rights of the first-born S07i, ivas the object, 

The last passage which it is necessary to notice, is that 
recorded in Deut. 35: 5-10. "If brethren dwell together, and 
one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall 
not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother 
shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform 
the duty of an husband's brother unto her." It is said by 
the advocates of polygamy, "This instance at least shows, 
that though a man had a wife of his own, there were circum- 
stances in which it was proper for him to cohabit with one 
who had been the wife of another." Here it is assumed that 
the younger brother who was required to marry the widow of 
the elder and departed brother, was himself a married man. 
We remark, 

1. This is mere assumption. — Of its truthfulness there is 
no proof. 

2, The context shows, as we believe, that the requirement 
was made only of single brothers. The wording of the text 
implies that it was required only of those dwelling together — 
"If brethren dwell together." By the law of primogeniture 
the eldest son was made heir of the patrimony — the father's 
estate. The other brothers not yet married, would be dwelling 
yet at the homestead. The first-born dying, the next brother 
was required to take his wife, and marry her. Dr. Patrick 
in his comment on the phrase, "If brethren dwell together," 
and speaking of the teaching of the Jewish commentators on 
this subject, says: "They might likewise have concluded 
frona this phrase, that such of the brethren as had wives 
already, were not bound to take her to wife, but only he that 
was unmarried; who might be supposed to be meant by 'him 
that dwelleth together with his brother,' and was not yet 
gone to a house of his own." This view is strengthened by 
parallel passages from the Bible. When Er the husband of 
Tamar was slain, and Onan also, Judah said to Tamar : — 
"Remain a widow at thy father's house until Selah" (the 
younger brother of Er) "be grown." She was to wait for 
the >ingle brother, yet dwelling in the house. Naomi said tp 
the widowed wives of her sons: "If I should have an husband 
to-night, and should also bear sons, would yc tarry for tliem 
till they be grown?" — Implying that that was the custom so 



228 POLYGAMY. 

to wait for single or unmarried sons of the same family, to be 
taken as husbands. And when the widow took a husband out 
of the family from among her husband's kindred, it appears 
that an unmarried man was taken rather than the nearest 
kinsman. Thus the nearer kinsman of Ruth (Ruth 3: 12,) 
said: "I cannot redeem her least I mar my own inheritance" 
(Ruth 4: 5, 6) — that is his family — (children are called a heri- 
tage, Ps. 127: 3). He was already a married man and as such 
could not take her. So Dr. Patrick in his comment; and adds 
a quotation from the Caldee paraphrast, which represents the 
kinsman as saying: "I cannot redeem it (the widow and land), 
for 1 have a wife already; and it is not fit for me to bring 
another into my house for fear bawling and quarreling arise 
in it, and least I hurt my own inherhance." Because he 
was a married man he could not take her, though the nearest 
kinsman. The lot tlien fell on Boas who took her to wife; 
evidently implying that he had no wife, and could therefore 
marry her. I believe it is a mere assumption that the widow 
of tbe first born was required to be taken as a wife or concu- 
bine by any man who had alrealy a wife. But if it were 
even admitted, that in case of the death of tlie first-born 
before a son was born to him. another brother who was mar- 
ried, was required to take the widow ot his elder brother and 
raise up seed to him, tbe requirement was made not on the 
ground that polygamy was lawful to the people of that age, 
but only in one particular case, and that for the purpose of 
preserving one of the features of the Jewish economy — the 
lineage of the first-born, who was probably a type of Christ. 
This however could be done by a kinsman out of the family, 
as in the case of Boas. Having shown that the passages 
commonly adduced in support of polygamy, do not sustain 
it, we now introduce positive enactments which forbade it. 

1. As Dr. Dvvight justly remarks, "it was a violation of 
the original institution of Marriage, which vyas confined to 
one man with one woman — 'Twain shall be one flesh.' This 
is the only authority under which marriage lawfully exists. 
Polygamy is therefore a violation of the institution of God." 
D wight's Theology, vol. iii. p. 419. 

2. Our Saviour shows that it is a plain violation of the 
seventh commandment. — See Math. 19: 9. — " Whosoever 
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall 
marry another, committeth adultery." Says Dwight "in what 
dges this adultery consist? Certainly not in putting away 



POLYGAMY, 229 

the former wife. A man may obviously leave his wife, or a 
woman her husband, and yet neither of them be at all guilty 
of this sin. The adultery, then, consists in the fact, that the 
man marries a second wife, whilst the first is living. This 
is always done in polygamy. Polygamy is, therefore, a con- 
tinued state of adulty." Now is it for a moment plausible 
that Moses would make laws licensing a relation which was 
not only in opposition to that natural relation which he tells 
us God estabhshed, but also in opposition to one of the plain 
precepts of the decalogue, declared to the world by this same 
Moses? We think few can believe it. Again, the king, who 
was to be an example for his subjects, was forbidden to have 
more than one wife. "Neither shall he" (the king) "multiply 
wives to himself, that his heart turn not away." Deut. 17: 
17. Now every man must decide that taking so much as one 
to the first is multiplying wives, and is as certainly a violation 
of the precept, as though he had taken ninety and nine. And 
all the gloss of authorities from "unregenerate and proud 
German Rationalism", cannot make it otherwise. 

Lastly, in Leviticus 18: 18, after commanding the Jews not 
to live after the organic sins of the Egyptians and the Ca- 
naanites, God said to them: " Neither shalt thou take a wife 
to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the 
other, in her life-time." Or, as it is corrected in the margin 
of your Bible. "Neither shalt thou take one ivife to another, 
to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, in her 
life-time." The latter we believe to be the proper rendering. 
Bush in his comment (though he supposes this case may refer 
to a sister) says "the Hebrew phrase ishah el alwthah, a 
woman to her sister, is used in the Scriptures idiomatically to 
signify the adding of one thing to another." It is used in the 
Scriptures ten tnnes, and in every one except the case before 
us, the rendering in our translation is, one to another, together, 
or some phraseology wholly equivalent. Analogically then, 
in the present instance, it forbids one woman to be added to 
another as a wife, during the life-time of the first. The 
phrase, says Dr. Dwight, "seems to denote, principally, the 
exact likeness of one thing to another; and here forbids, as 
the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another 
during her life-time.'''' This we believe is the import of the 
passage, and nothing is gained to poligamy by the other view: 
For, 



230 POLYGAMY. 

1, It would be as vexatious to a wife to have any other 
woman to be a concubine, as a sister. The reason assigned 
for construing the text as it now stands in our English version, 
is that a sister would vex the first wife more than any other 
•woman: and family quarrels is the thing objected to. But 
a sister would be no more vexing than any other woman. 
Rachel was not more vexatious to Leah, than Hagar to Sarah. 
Indeed, all with whom I have ever conversed on the subject 
concur that a sister would be less vexatious than any other 
woman. 

2. If the text be construed as simply forbidding the taking 
of one sister to another during her life-time, it is as plain a 
prohibition of Patriarchal polygamy, the polygamy defended, 
as a prohibition not to take one wife to another: for Jacob not 
only took one wife to another, but took one sister to another 
in her life-time, which thnig in this chapter is said to be "an 
abomination." The truth is, polygamy was not sanctioned to 
the Jews; and "existed only in violation of the law, and at 
the risk of its excinding penalty." 

Do you again say, some good men did practice it? We 
answer, as we have before shown, that good men of that age 
done many other abominations, yet God communed with 
them, and blessed them. And (we think it is) Dr. Woods of 
Andover, who tells us of a presbytery of pious ministers and 
elders who, some thirty or forty years ago, assembled one 
afternoon, and found themselves so drunk that they were 
incapacitated for transacting business, and adjourned until 
next morning, when they would probably be sober. Yet 
none of us doubt but that these men, as a body, were good 
men; and that God often communed with them and blessed 
them. Yet this latter fact, did not change the moral character 
of their drunkenness — did not prevent it from being sin. So 
with polygamy. 







•^-Hfti. 




O „ . ^ 






^0 






0-v 






i| 





V-o^ 










1^ .1*0. "^3 







V* ;>M/^, u.^ :' 












O " O - <S>^ fN 







" • * xV <* ' • • ' ^<^ ^ 'o , » * .^ 







o V- 















''<^. ^-^^^ / - - •. <»^.. ^A. ^^^rm^' ^. 



^"^9^ 



^C^*" ^''^ ^^^^^^^ 



"/ '?.^ \ 







V **^!L'* <^. 












,0 






• " * <'?' 






>^ o_ 



^<sr^ 


























